Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 records an average benchmark score of 18,374, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H records 33,537. The Core Ultra 7 255H sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 360 sits in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, which gives it a substantial multi-threading advantage on paper.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The Core 7 360 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 255H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, making it higher in both metrics.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 13,634 versus 9,240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, a delta of 47.6% in favor of the Core 7 360. This is the largest win for the Core 7 360 in the head-to-head data.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 7 255H in PassMark multi-thread testing?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 30,703 versus 15,544 for the Core 7 360, a 49.4% advantage. The Core Ultra 7 255H also wins PassMark single-thread with 4,317 versus 4,274, a 1% margin.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. However, the Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but diverge sharply in almost every other architectural detail. The Intel Core 7 360 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is fabricated by TSMC.

The core configuration difference is dramatic. The Core 7 360 ships with 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading overhead. The Core Ultra 7 255H ships with 16 cores and 16 threads, more than double the core count. This alone explains much of the multi-threaded workload behavior in the recorded data.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both chips list 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB on the Core 7 360 versus 3 MB on the Core Ultra 7 255H. The shared L3 cache shows a larger gap: 6 MB on the Core 7 360 versus 24 MB on the Core Ultra 7 255H. That fourfold L3 difference can influence workloads with large working sets.

The memory controller is another key split. The Core 7 360 runs single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255H runs dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 255H also supports ECC memory while the Core 7 360 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 255H provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). That is a generational jump in both PCIe version and lane count.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The socket changes too: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049.

Power envelopes are not identical. The Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28 watts. The higher TDP on the Core Ultra 7 255H aligns with its larger core count and higher clock ceiling.

Release timing differs. The Core Ultra 7 255H was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 7 360 was released on 2026-04-15. The part numbers differ as well: SAE3E for the Core 7 360 and SRQAN for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head dataset shows 17 benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins 15 of them. The Intel Core 7 360 wins 2. But the wins are not distributed evenly across workload types, and the magnitudes tell a more complex story.

The Core 7 360 takes Cinebench R23 multi-core by a wide margin: 13,634 versus 9,240, a 47.6% delta. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core, 1,924 versus 1,843, a 4.4% margin. These two wins suggest that the Core 7 360 has a strong sustained performance profile in the R23 workload, despite having far fewer cores.

Every other Cinebench test goes to the Core Ultra 7 255H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 255H scores 1,515 versus 1,374, a 9.3% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 251 versus 193, a 23.1% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 6,381 versus 5,726, a 10.3% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 900 versus 808, a 10.2% lead.

The PassMark suite is overwhelmingly favorable to the Core Ultra 7 255H. Data compression: 298,850 versus 142,877, a 52.2% lead. Data encryption: 23,395 versus 11,164, a 52.3% lead. Extended instructions: 23,755 versus 12,390, a 47.8% lead. Find prime numbers: 303 versus 120, a 60.4% lead. Floating point math: 98,796 versus 44,963, a 54.5% lead. Integer math: 77,975 versus 34,238, a 56.1% lead. Multi-thread: 30,703 versus 15,544, a 49.4% lead. Physics: 2,254 versus 1,213, a 46.2% lead. Random string sorting: 36,058 versus 17,636, a 51.1% lead.

The single-thread PassMark results are the closest comparison. The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 4,317 versus 4,274 for the Core 7 360, a 1% delta. That near-tie in single-thread PassMark contrasts sharply with the 23.1% delta in Cinebench R15 single-core, which suggests workload-specific behavior rather than a universal single-thread advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 255H also holds a Geekbench pair not available for the Core 7 360: 14,024 multi-core and 2,335 single-core. Those numbers are not head-to-head comparisons but do sit in the database as additional data points for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Field | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Core Ultra 7 255H |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 (2 Xe) | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | None listed |

| Part number | SAE3E | SRQAN |

The launch MSRP for the Core 7 360 is $426. The Core Ultra 7 255H has no launch MSRP listed in the database. Both processors are locked (multiplier not unlocked), both target the mobile market segment, and both are listed as active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H dominates the workload categories that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. PassMark integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, and physics all show leads between 46.2% and 60.4%. These are heavily parallel or throughput-oriented tasks, and the 16-core design with 24 MB of L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is the clear driver.

The Core Ultra 7 255H also takes the Cinebench R15 and R20 tests, both single-core and multi-core. The single-core margins in R15 (23.1%) and R20 (10.2%) indicate that its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz and dual-channel memory subsystem benefit those specific rendering workloads. The near-tie in PassMark single-thread (1% delta) shows that the single-thread advantage is not universal, but it is present in the Cinebench family.

The Intel Core 7 360 wins in Cinebench R23, both multi-core and single-core. The multi-core win of 47.6% is striking given that the Core 7 360 has only 6 cores against 16 cores. The single-core win of 4.4% is smaller but still consistent. This suggests the Core 7 360 has an unusually strong sustained performance profile in R23, possibly due to its lower TDP of 15 watts and the Wildcat Lake architecture using a more efficient power delivery under this specific workload.

The Core 7 360 also has the advantage of a newer release date (2026-04-15 versus 2025-01-12) and a lower TDP, which matters for thermally constrained mobile chassis. Its 15-watt envelope is nearly half the 28-watt envelope of the Core Ultra 7 255H.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the stronger processor for the vast majority of measured workloads. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds an 83rd percentile rank versus 72nd for the Core 7 360, and delivers leads beyond 50% in several PassMark tests. Users running parallel compute, data compression, encryption, or physics workloads should look to the Core Ultra 7 255H based on these measurements.

The Intel Core 7 360 is the better choice specifically for Cinebench R23 workloads, where it leads by 47.6% in multi-core and 4.4% in single-core. It also carries a lower TDP of 15 watts, which is advantageous in power-sensitive mobile designs. The Core 7 360 has a launch MSRP of $426, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has no listed launch MSRP.

The average benchmark score gap is substantial: 33,537 for the Core Ultra 7 255H versus 18,374 for the Core 7 360. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the positioning. The Core 7 360 sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-13100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core i3-14100, and Intel Core 3 305. The Core Ultra 7 255H sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 240, AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and Intel Core i5-12600HX.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 255H belongs in a higher performance tier. The Core 7 360 is competitive in specific rendering workloads and offers a much lower power draw, but the breadth of benchmark wins heavily favors the Core Ultra 7 255H for general and parallel processing tasks.