Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 360 compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL in overall performance?

A: The Core 7 360 has a recorded average benchmark score of 18,374, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 7 155UL has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and sits in the 50th percentile. This indicates the Core 7 360 is the only one of the two with measurable performance data, and its percentile ranking is substantially higher.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for these two processors?

A: The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra 7 offers double the core count and more than double the thread count.

Q: Do both processors have the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both the Core 7 360 and the Core Ultra 7 155UL have a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Their base clocks differ, with the Core 7 360 at 1.50 GHz and the Core Ultra 7 155UL at 1.70 GHz.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Core 7 360 is built on a 3 nm process node, whereas the Core Ultra 7 155UL uses a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: What memory configurations do these processors support?

A: The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 155UL supports DDR5 memory (dependent on motherboard) over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 7 155UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 6 MB of shared L3 cache found on the Core 7 360.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear separation between these two processors. The Intel Core 7 360 is the only one of the pair with any benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score of 18,374 places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, which is a strong result for a mobile processor. The Core Ultra 7 155UL has no recorded benchmark scores, an average score of zero, and a 50th percentile ranking, which means its performance characteristics are unmeasured in this database.

For any user relying on measured performance, the Core 7 360 is the only viable option between the two. Its benchmark scores are comprehensive across Cinebench and Passmark suites, covering single-threaded, multi-threaded, and specialized workloads. The Core Ultra 7 155UL, despite having more cores, threads, and a larger L3 cache, cannot be recommended on the basis of performance data, as none exists in the records.

The choice is straightforward from the data: the Core 7 360 delivers verified performance across all recorded tests, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL offers no measurable benchmark results. The Core 7 360 also matches the Ultra 7 in boost clock at 4.80 GHz and has a significantly smaller process node at 3 nm versus 7 nm, suggesting architectural efficiency gains. The Ultra 7 155UL does hold advantages in raw specifications, such as core count, memory bandwidth, and cache size, but these advantages cannot be quantified in terms of actual performance without benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two processors. The head-to-head benchmark section is empty, and neither processor records any wins in direct comparison. The Core 7 360 has 17 individual benchmark scores, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL has zero.

The Core 7 360's recorded scores include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13,634 and a single-core score of 1,924. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5,726 multi-core and 808 single-core, while in Cinebench R15 it scores 1,374 multi-core and 193 single-core. These results establish a baseline for the Core 7 360 across three generations of the Cinebench test.

Passmark results for the Core 7 360 show a single-thread score of 4,274, a multi-thread score of 15,544, and a physics score of 1,213. Specialized workloads include data compression at 142,877, data encryption at 11,164, extended instructions at 12,390, floating point math at 44,963, integer math at 34,238, and random string sorting at 17,636. The processor also records a find prime numbers score of 120.

Since the Core Ultra 7 155UL has no benchmark entries, there are no direct comparisons to make. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 360, based on average benchmark score, are the Intel Core i3-13100 with a score of 18,380 (a 0% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 with a score of 18,345 (a 0.2% delta), the Intel Core i3-14100 with a score of 18,318 (a 0.3% delta), and the Intel Core 3 305 with a score of 18,302 (a 0.4% delta). These rival scores confirm that the Core 7 360 performs in line with a cluster of similarly positioned processors, with negligible percentage differences among them.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Core 7 360 running at 1.50 GHz and the Ultra 7 155UL at 1.70 GHz, though both share a 4.80 GHz boost clock.

The thermal design power is identical at 15 watts for both. The socket types are different: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL uses Intel Socket 1851. The process node also differs substantially, with the Core 7 360 on 3 nm and the Ultra 7 155UL on 7 nm.

Memory support varies significantly. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 155UL supports DDR5 memory (dependent on motherboard) over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 7 155UL offers roughly 50% more memory bandwidth on paper.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 155UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units.

Cache configurations differ in both size and organization. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 155UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 155UL doubles the L3 cache but has smaller per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Market segments also differ. The Core 7 360 is classified as a mobile processor, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL is classified as a desktop processor. Both processors have a release date recorded, with the Core 7 360 releasing in April 2026 and the Core Ultra 7 155UL releasing in April 2024. Both have a launch MSRP of $426, are active in production, and have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The architecture name is not listed, but the codename and generation indicate a newer design. The processor integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, suggesting a recent graphics architecture.

The Core Ultra 7 155UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename. It belongs to the Ultra 7 (Meteor Lake-PS) generation and is part of the Core Ultra Series 1. It is built on a 7 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units, representing an earlier graphics generation than the Xe3 found on the Core 7 360.

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 7 nm is a two-generation jump in manufacturing technology. This likely explains how the Core 7 360 achieves similar boost clocks with fewer cores while maintaining the same 15 watt TDP. The newer process node typically enables higher efficiency per transistor, though the database does not provide direct power efficiency measurements.

Cache hierarchies differ in design philosophy. The Core 7 360 uses larger per-core caches (192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2) but a smaller shared L3 (6 MB). The Core Ultra 7 155UL uses smaller per-core caches (112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2) but double the shared L3 (12 MB). The larger L3 on the Ultra 7 155UL likely benefits multi-core workloads with shared data, while the larger per-core caches on the Core 7 360 could favor single-threaded performance.

The memory architecture differs as well. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus, which is unusual for a processor with a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 155UL uses a dual-channel bus with higher theoretical bandwidth. This is a notable architectural divergence: the newer processor opts for a simpler memory path, while the older one provides a wider path.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The Core 7 360 has part number SAE3E, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL has part number SRN97.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 360 wins in every category where measured data exists. It has a complete suite of 17 benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark tests, ranging from single-threaded workloads to multi-threaded and specialized computations. Its 72nd percentile ranking versus the Ultra 7 155UL's 50th percentile confirms that, based on the database's classification, the Core 7 360 sits in a higher performance tier.

The Core 7 360 also wins on process technology, using a 3 nm node versus the 7 nm node of the Ultra 7 155UL. This indicates a more advanced manufacturing process. It also uses a newer graphics architecture (Xe3 versus Xe-LPG) and supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, which the Ultra 7 155UL does not.

The Core Ultra 7 155UL wins on raw specification counts. It offers 12 cores versus 6, 14 threads versus 6, 12 MB of L3 cache versus 6 MB, dual-channel memory versus single-channel, and higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s. It also provides more PCIe lanes (8 versus 6) and is classified as a desktop processor, which may indicate a different intended usage environment.

In terms of use cases, the data supports the Core 7 360 for any workload where measured performance matters. Its Cinebench scores indicate solid multi-core capability for its class, and its Passmark scores cover a wide range of operations including encryption, compression, and math calculations.

The Core Ultra 7 155UL, with no benchmark data, cannot be assigned specific workload strengths based on measurements. Its specification advantages suggest potential for memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks or heavily threaded workloads, but the database does not contain evidence to confirm this. The 50th percentile ranking is a neutral placement without supporting performance scores.

For users prioritizing verified performance, the Core 7 360 is the data-backed choice. For users prioritizing core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth on paper, the Core Ultra 7 155UL has the specification advantage, but its actual performance remains unmeasured and unverified in this database.