Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison
Intel Core 7 360
Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus
The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single head-to-head test, 17 out of 17. The Intel Core 7 360 is not competitive in any measured workload, whether single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction tasks. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers a 68.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (42718 vs 13634) and even a 9% lead in the closest contest, PassMark single-thread (4698 vs 4274).
The Core 7 360 is a mobile part with 6 cores, 6 threads, a 15 W TDP, and a 1.50 GHz base clock. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with 18 cores, 18 threads, a 125 W TDP, and a 4.20 GHz base clock. The data shows the desktop chip is the clear choice for any performance-oriented build. The Core 7 360 fits only where its low power envelope and integrated graphics are mandatory, but even then, the performance gap is enormous. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile across all CPUs, while the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 360 are the Core i3-13100 (delta 0%), Core 5 330 (delta 0.2%), Core i3-14100 (delta 0.3%), and Core 3 305 (delta 0.4%), showing it is a low-end part. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus competes with the Core 9 273PQE (delta 0.1%), Ryzen 9 7950X3D (delta 0.4%), Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (delta -1%), and EPYC 4465P (delta -1.1%), placing it in a much higher performance class.
Architecture Differences
The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but use different foundries. The Core 7 360 uses Intel's own foundry, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses TSMC. The Core 7 360 is built on the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2.
The core counts differ drastically. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, also without hyperthreading. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache differs: 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 360 versus 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The L3 cache is a major differentiator: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 360 versus 30 MB shared on the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.
Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5, but with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 360 does not. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 360 has Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Core 7 360 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 7 360 does not. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size; these figures are not recorded for the Core 7 360.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every recorded benchmark. The largest margins appear in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4305 versus 1374, a 68.1% lead. The same 68.1% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (17941 vs 5726) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (42718 vs 13634). Single-core Cinebench results show a similar 68.1% to 68.2% gap: R15 single-core is 607 vs 193, R20 single-core is 2532 vs 808, and R23 single-core is 6030 vs 1924.
PassMark results reinforce the pattern. Data compression: 553155 vs 142877, a 74.2% lead. Data encryption: 41292 vs 11164, a 73% lead. Extended instructions: 42880 vs 12390, a 71.1% lead. Prime number finding: 452 vs 120, a 73.5% lead. Floating point math: 159824 vs 44963, a 71.9% lead. Integer math: 123030 vs 34238, a 72.2% lead. Multithread: 50146 vs 15544, a 69% lead. Physics: 3183 vs 1213, a 61.9% lead. Random string sorting: 67209 vs 17636, a 73.8% lead.
The narrowest margin is PassMark single-thread: 4698 vs 4274, a 9% lead for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. This indicates that per-core efficiency is closer, but the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus still holds the advantage. Across all 17 tests, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is never behind, and in most tests it is ahead by more than 60%.
Specification Differences
The recorded specifications where the two processors differ are as follows:
- Cores: 6 (Core 7 360) vs 18 (Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus)
- Threads: 6 vs 18
- Base clock: 1.50 GHz vs 4.20 GHz
- Boost clock: 4.80 GHz vs 5.30 GHz
- TDP: 15 W vs 125 W
- Socket: Intel BGA 1516 vs Intel Socket 1851
- Codename: Wildcat Lake vs Arrow Lake Refresh
- Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
- Transistors: not recorded vs 17,800 million
- Die size: not recorded vs 243 mm²
- L2 cache: 2.5 MB per core vs 3 MB per core
- L3 cache: 6 MB shared vs 30 MB shared
- Memory support: DDR5, LPDDR5X vs DDR5 only
- Memory bus: Single-channel vs Dual-channel
- Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s
- ECC memory: false vs true
- PCIe: Gen 4, 6 lanes vs Gen 5, 20 lanes
- Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) vs N/A
- Market segment: Mobile vs Desktop
- Release date: 2026-04-15 vs 2026-03-10
- Launch MSRP: $426 vs $184
- Multiplier unlocked: false vs true
- Part number: SAE3E vs SA4V3
FAQ
Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 42718 versus 13634 for the Intel Core 7 360, a 68.1% advantage.
Q: Is the single-thread performance gap as large as the multi-thread gap?
A: No. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 versus 4274, a 9% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is larger: 6030 versus 1924, a 68.1% lead.
Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 have integrated graphics?
A: Yes, it uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 360 does not.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 115.2 GB/s bandwidth with a dual-channel bus. The Intel Core 7 360 has 59.7 GB/s with a single-channel bus.
Q: Are these processors on the same manufacturing node?
A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the Intel Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is fabricated by TSMC.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single benchmark in the database. There is no recorded test where the Intel Core 7 360 comes out ahead. Therefore, the use-case split is stark: the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the choice for any application that benefits from processing power, which includes all 17 measured workload categories.
The only scenario where the Core 7 360 has an edge is in its physical characteristics: it is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, which suits fanless or battery-operated designs. It also includes integrated graphics, so systems without a discrete GPU can use it for display output. Its single-channel memory and Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes are adequate for light tasks, but the benchmark data shows the performance cost is severe.
The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, being a desktop part with a 125 W TDP, requires a discrete GPU, but it compensates with 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes, dual-channel memory, ECC support, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The average benchmark score confirms the separation: 66159 for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus versus 18374 for the Core 7 360. The Core 7 360's nearest rivals are all Core i3-class parts, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trades blows with Ryzen 9 and EPYC-class hardware. For any performance-sensitive workload, the data points exclusively to the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus.