Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

The Intel Core 7 360 and Intel Core Ultra 7 265 occupy very different segments of the desktop and mobile landscape. The Core 7 360 is a 6-core, 6-thread mobile processor built on the Wildcat Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is a 20-core, 20-thread desktop processor based on Arrow Lake. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Core Ultra 7 265 winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. This analysis breaks down what each processor delivers according to the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 7 360. The Core 7 360 has zero wins across the 17 head-to-head tests. This is not a close contest, and the use-case split is defined entirely by the magnitude of the Core Ultra 7 265's victories rather than by any workload where the Core 7 360 takes the lead.

The Core Ultra 7 265 dominates in heavily threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42216 against the Core 7 360's 13634, a delta of -67.7% for the Core 7 360. PassMark multi-thread results show a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 265 scoring 49682 versus 15544, a -68.7% difference. The Core Ultra 7 265 also leads in single-threaded tests, though by a smaller margin. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4689 against 4274, a -8.9% difference. The Core 7 360's closest relative performance appears in Cinebench R20, where it trails by only -8.6% in both multi-core and single-core tests. That R20 result is the only benchmark where the Core 7 360 comes within single digits of its larger rival.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but are fabricated by different foundries. The Core 7 360 is built by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is built by TSMC. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed under the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 360 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 provides 20 cores and 20 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds also differ, with the Core 7 360 running a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock, while the Core Ultra 7 265 runs a 2.40 GHz base clock and a 5.30 GHz boost clock.

Cache configurations are notably different. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Core 7 360 has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265 also has a larger transistor count at 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², figures not listed for the Core 7 360.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs, with the Core 7 360 offering Gen 4 with 6 CPU-only lanes and the Core Ultra 7 265 offering Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 EU. Thermal design power reflects the different market segments, with the Core 7 360 rated at 15 W and the Core Ultra 7 265 at 65 W. The Core 7 360 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gaps favor the Core Ultra 7 265 in compression and encryption workloads. PassMark data compression shows the Core Ultra 7 265 at 522983 against the Core 7 360's 142877, a -72.7% difference. PassMark data encryption shows 40456 against 11164, a -72.4% difference. Integer math follows closely, with the Core Ultra 7 265 scoring 134773 versus 34238, a -74.6% delta, the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head data. Floating-point math shows 172776 versus 44963, a -74% delta.

Extended instruction workloads also favor the Core Ultra 7 265. PassMark extended instructions show 41478 versus 12390, a -70.1% difference. Prime number finding shows 418 versus 120, a -71.3% difference. Random string sorting shows 63833 versus 17636, a -72.4% difference. Physics simulation shows 2923 versus 1213, a -58.5% difference, the smallest multi-threaded margin in the data.

Cinebench results confirm the pattern. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4255 versus 1374, a -67.7% difference, and R15 single-core shows 600 versus 193, a -67.8% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 42216 versus 13634, a -67.7% difference, and R23 single-core shows 5960 versus 1924, a -67.7% difference. Cinebench R20 shows the closest margins, with multi-core at 6268 versus 5726 and single-core at 884 versus 808, both at -8.6%.

The single-threaded PassMark results show the smallest gap overall, with the Core Ultra 7 265 ahead by -8.9% at 4689 versus 4274. This indicates that while the Core Ultra 7 265 has a clear architectural advantage in single-thread performance, the Core 7 360 is comparatively closer in that specific workload than in any multi-threaded test.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward selection. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger processor in every recorded benchmark, with an average benchmark score of 64640 and a 93rd percentile ranking across all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374 and a 72nd percentile ranking. The Core Ultra 7 265 also sits in a higher performance class according to its nearest rivals, which include AMD EPYC server processors and the closely matched Core Ultra 7 265F. The Core 7 360's nearest rivals are lower-end desktop parts like the Intel Core i3-13100 and Intel Core 5 330.

The Core 7 360 is positioned for mobile systems with its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and BGA socket. Its 6 cores and 6 threads are sufficient for basic productivity, but the recorded data shows it is decisively outmatched by the Core Ultra 7 265, which offers more than three times the cores and a much larger cache. Users running heavily threaded workloads, data compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets should select the Core Ultra 7 265. The Core 7 360 remains a viable option only for compact, low-power mobile designs where the Core Ultra 7 265's 65 W desktop TDP and Socket 1851 platform are not applicable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 42216 versus the Core 7 360's 13634, a -67.7% difference. PassMark multi-thread shows 49682 versus 15544, a -68.7% difference.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tests?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 is faster, scoring 4689 in PassMark single-thread versus the Core 7 360's 4274, a -8.9% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5960 versus 1924, a -67.7% difference.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Core 7 360 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 7 265 has a dual-channel memory bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and supports DDR5.

Q: What process node and foundry are used?

A: Both processors are on a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Core 7 360 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 7 265 is rated at 65 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 20 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not listed | Arrow Lake |

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

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $394 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |