Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Core 7 360, a 6-core mobile part, does not win a single comparison. The margins vary from a narrow single-core gap to a massive multi-core deficit.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 5020 against 1374 for the Core 7 360, a delta of -72.6% from the perspective of the smaller chip. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 708 versus 193, again -72.7%. These are enormous gaps, but they reflect the fundamental difference in core counts and power envelopes between the two processors.

The R20 results reinforce the pattern. The Core Ultra 7 265K delivers 20918 in multi-core versus 5726, a -72.6% delta. Single-core R20 shows 2953 versus 808, also -72.6%. The consistency of these percentage deltas across R15 and R20 suggests the performance relationship scales almost linearly in these workloads, with the larger chip maintaining roughly a 3.6x advantage in both tests.

Cinebench R23 narrows the gap slightly in multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35850 against 13634, a -62% delta. The single-core R23 result is the closest comparison in the entire dataset: 2020 versus 1924, a delta of only -4.8%. This indicates that in lightly threaded rendering tasks, the two architectures are nearly equivalent at the per-thread level. The Core 7 360's 4.80 GHz boost clock and the Core Ultra 7 265K's 5.50 GHz boost clock are both high, but the newer Wildcat Lake core design appears to close most of the frequency gap in R23 single-core.

PassMark results show the widest absolute deltas. Data compression scores 665554 for the Core Ultra 7 265K versus 142877, a -78.5% delta. Random string sorting shows 79752 versus 17636, a -77.9% delta. Extended instructions scores 54333 versus 12390, a -77.2% delta. Data encryption shows 48246 versus 11164, a -76.9% delta. Floating point math scores 189629 versus 44963, a -76.3% delta. Integer math scores 143242 versus 34238, a -76.1% delta. Find prime numbers scores 491 versus 120, a -75.6% delta. These are all heavily multi-threaded workloads where the 20-core part simply overwhelms the 6-core part.

The PassMark multi-thread score is 58594 for the Core Ultra 7 265K versus 15544, a -73.5% delta. PassMark physics shows 3731 versus 1213, a -67.5% delta. The closest PassMark result is single-thread: 4928 versus 4274, a -13.3% delta. This 13.3% single-thread gap is more pronounced than the R23 single-core gap, suggesting different workloads stress different aspects of the core design.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Core Ultra 7 265K averages 70879, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 360 averages 18374, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core Ultra 7 265K sits near the top of the database, while the Core 7 360 sits well above the median but far from the top tier.

For context, the Core 7 360's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i3-13100 with an average score of 18380 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (0.3% delta), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18302 (0.4% delta). The Core Ultra 7 265K's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6511P at 71051 (-0.2% delta), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 at 71370 (-0.7% delta), the Intel Core i7-14700KF at 70163 (1% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F at 69996 (1.3% delta). These groupings show that each processor competes in a completely different performance tier.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors aimed at entirely different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop part with 20 cores, a 125 W TDP, and a 94th percentile standing in the database. The Intel Core 7 360 is a mobile part with 6 cores, a 15 W TDP, and a 72nd percentile standing. Their average benchmark scores differ by roughly 3.9x in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265K.

Anyone choosing between these two parts based purely on the recorded benchmark results would select the Core Ultra 7 265K for every measured workload. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -4.8% to -78.5%. The only area where the Core 7 360 approaches parity is Cinebench R23 single-core, where it trails by just 4.8%. That is a narrow margin, but it is still a loss.

The Core 7 360's role is defined by its market segment: mobile. Its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory bus, and Intel BGA 1516 socket place it in thin-and-light laptops. The Core Ultra 7 265K's 125 W TDP, dual-channel memory bus, and Socket 1851 place it in desktop towers. The data does not suggest one is a substitute for the other; it suggests they serve different physical platforms with different power budgets.

From the recorded data, the Core Ultra 7 265K is the clear choice for anyone building a desktop system where maximum multi-threaded throughput matters. The Core 7 360 is the only choice for a mobile platform that matches its BGA socket and 15 W thermal envelope. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 360 is $426, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265K is $394. The database shows the desktop part delivers dramatically higher performance at a lower launch MSRP, but the mobile part's value cannot be assessed without considering the platform it serves.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different core architectures and different foundries. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arrow Lake-S. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265K is fabricated by TSMC. This foundry difference is notable: the same process node name does not imply identical transistor characteristics.

The Core Ultra 7 265K carries the Arrow Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, also without hyperthreading. Both parts rely on physical cores for thread parallelism.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 360 and 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 265K. The L3 cache shows the largest difference: 6 MB shared on the Core 7 360 versus 30 MB shared on the Core Ultra 7 265K. That 5x L3 difference likely contributes to the multi-threaded performance gap in cache-sensitive workloads.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the relative graphical performance is not quantified in the recorded data.

Memory support differs: the Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Core Ultra 7 265K supports only DDR5. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265K uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265K supports ECC memory; the Core 7 360 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ substantially. The Core 7 360 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 265K offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This affects expansion options: the desktop part can drive more devices at higher bandwidth.

The Core Ultra 7 265K has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Core 7 360. The multiplier is unlocked on the Core Ultra 7 265K, while the Core 7 360 is locked. This means the desktop part can be overclocked, while the mobile part cannot.

Specification Differences

The processors differ on nearly every recorded specification. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 360 and 3.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively.

TDP differs by a factor of more than 8: 15 W for the Core 7 360, 125 W for the Core Ultra 7 265K. The socket is different: Intel BGA 1516 for the mobile part, Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part. Release dates differ: 2026-04-15 for the Core 7 360, 2024-10-23 for the Core Ultra 7 265K. The part numbers are SAE3E and SRQCW respectively.

The market segments are opposite: Mobile for the Core 7 360, Desktop for the Core Ultra 7 265K. The Core Ultra 7 265K has a specified series (Core Ultra Series 2) and architecture (Arrow Lake); the Core 7 360 has neither in the database. The Core 7 360's generation is listed as "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)", while the Core Ultra 7 265K's generation is "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)".

The Core Ultra 7 265K supports ECC memory, has dual-channel memory, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 360 has single-channel memory, 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes, LPDDR5X support, and a locked multiplier. The cache hierarchy differs in L2 size per core (2.5 MB vs 3 MB) and L3 shared (6 MB vs 30 MB).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 W, while the Core Ultra 7 265K has a TDP of 125 W.

Q: How close are the single-core performances?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 2020 versus 1924, a delta of -4.8%. In PassMark single-thread, the scores are 4928 versus 4274, a delta of -13.3%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K supports ECC memory. The Core 7 360 does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

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

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 360 does not.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Core 7 360 averages 18374, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 265K averages 70879, placing it in the 94th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265K wins every recorded benchmark. There is no single test where the Core 7 360 takes the lead. The biggest wins for the Core Ultra 7 265K are in data compression (-78.5%), random string sorting (-77.9%), extended instructions (-77.2%), data encryption (-76.9%), floating point math (-76.3%), and integer math (-76.1%). These are all multi-threaded workloads that benefit from the 20-core configuration and the 30 MB shared L3 cache.

The narrowest wins for the Core Ultra 7 265K are in Cinebench R23 single-core (-4.8%) and PassMark single-thread (-13.3%). These results show that the per-core performance of the Wildcat Lake design in the Core 7 360 is competitive with the Arrow Lake design in the Core Ultra 7 265K, especially in the R23 workload. The 4.80 GHz boost clock of the Core 7 360 at 15 W is an efficient design point, but it still cannot match the 5.50 GHz boost of the desktop part.

The Core 7 360's wins are not in benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. It supports LPDDR5X memory, which the Core Ultra 7 265K does not. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile devices, while the 125 W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 265K requires desktop cooling. The Core 7 360 uses a BGA socket, meaning it is soldered to the motherboard, while the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Socket 1851, which allows for processor replacement. The Core 7 360 also uses Intel's own foundry, while the Core Ultra 7 265K is fabricated by TSMC.

For workloads strictly defined by the recorded benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 265K is the superior processor in every category. For a mobile platform that requires the Core 7 360's socket, TDP, and LPDDR5X support, the Core 7 360 is the only option that fits the form factor. The data does not suggest a use case where the Core 7 360 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 265K, but it does identify a use case where the Core 7 360 is the appropriate part: a low-power mobile system with a BGA 1516 socket.