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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with zero wins recorded for the Intel Core 7 360. The largest deltas appear in multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads, while the smallest gap appears in single-threaded PassMark testing.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 49,736 against the Core 7 360's 13,634, a difference of 72.6 percent. The same 72.6 percent delta repeats across Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,013 vs 1,374), R20 multi-core (20,889 vs 5,726), and each single-core Cinebench variant. The consistency of this delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates the performance ratio is stable regardless of the rendering workload's thread scaling.

PassMark data compression shows the widest margin at 78.6 percent, with the Core Ultra 7 265KF posting 666,589 against 142,877. Random string sorting follows closely at 77.9 percent (79,735 vs 17,636), and extended instructions shows a 77.3 percent gap (54,513 vs 12,390). These workloads exercise memory bandwidth and instruction-level parallelism, areas where the desktop part holds structural advantages.

The narrowest margin appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 4,928 versus 4,274, a 13.3 percent lead. This is the only benchmark where the Core 7 360 comes within striking distance. The physics test shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 66.6 percent (3,633 vs 1,213), while integer math (76.1 percent), floating-point math (76.3 percent), and data encryption (76.8 percent) all cluster in the mid-70s range.

The average benchmark score reinforces the separation: the Core Ultra 7 265KF averages 71,910 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 360 averages 18,374, which lands in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each part confirm their respective tiers. The Core 7 360 sits within 0.4 percent of the Intel Core i3-13100, Core 5 330, Core i3-14100, and Core 3 305. The Core Ultra 7 265KF sits within 0.8 percent of the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX, Intel Xeon 6517P, Xeon 6724P, and Xeon Platinum 8270.

Architecture Differences

The two processors occupy different market segments and physical platforms. The Intel Core 7 360 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516, built on the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, using the Arrow Lake-S codename with the same 3 nm process node but fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 265KF carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 7 360 has no transistor or die size figures recorded.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, also without hyper-threading, but the raw core count provides 3.3 times the parallel execution resources. Base clocks show 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 360 against 3.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265KF. Boost clocks reach 4.80 GHz on the mobile part and 5.50 GHz on the desktop part.

Cache hierarchies share the same L1 size at 192 KB per core. L2 differs: 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 360 versus 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 265KF. L3 shows a five-fold gap, with 6 MB shared on the mobile part and 30 MB shared on the desktop part. Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 360 accepts both DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only, but uses a dual-channel bus delivering 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe connectivity separates the two clearly. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 265KF provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the Core 7 360, which includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the N/A designation.

Power envelopes reflect the platform split. The Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 watts, appropriate for mobile integration. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has a TDP of 125 watts, appropriate for desktop cooling solutions. The multiplier is locked on the Core 7 360 and unlocked on the Core Ultra 7 265KF, allowing overclocking on the desktop part.

Release timing differs by roughly 18 months. The Core Ultra 7 265KF entered production status on 2024-10-23, while the Core 7 360 followed on 2026-04-15. Both remain active in production. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 360 is $426. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265KF is $379.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF reaches 5.50 GHz boost, while the Intel Core 7 360 reaches 4.80 GHz boost.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Neither processor supports ECC memory. Both list ECC memory as false in the recorded data.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core 7 360 has integrated graphics, using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel Core 7 360 provides 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor ranks higher in the database's overall percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF ranks in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 360 ranks in the 72nd percentile.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 6 | 20 |

| Threads | 6 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 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) | N/A |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $379 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SAE3E | SRQCU |

The Verdict

The benchmark data provides a decisive answer for anyone choosing between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 13.3 percent in single-threaded PassMark to 78.6 percent in data compression. Its average benchmark score of 71,910 places it in the 94th percentile, while the Core 7 360's 18,374 average sits in the 72nd percentile.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX, Intel Xeon 6517P, Xeon 6724P, and Xeon Platinum 8270, all within 0.8 percent of its average score. The Core 7 360's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-13100, Core 5 330, Core i3-14100, and Core 3 305, all within 0.4 percent. This places the two parts in entirely different performance tiers despite both using 3 nm process nodes.

The mobile part's integrated Xe3 graphics and 15 W TDP make it suitable for compact systems where discrete graphics are absent. The desktop part's lack of integrated graphics requires a separate GPU, but the unlocked multiplier, 5.50 GHz boost, dual-channel memory, and Gen 5 PCIe provide a platform for high-throughput workloads. The data shows no scenario where the Core 7 360 outperforms the Core Ultra 7 265KF in raw compute.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins every measured workload category. In Cinebench rendering tests, it leads by 72.6 percent consistently, indicating that both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering scale equally well on the desktop part. In PassMark data compression, the 78.6 percent lead suggests memory bandwidth plays a decisive role, as the dual-channel 102.4 GB/s configuration outperforms the single-channel 59.7 GB/s bus.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF also wins in encryption (76.8 percent), extended instructions (77.3 percent), prime number finding (75.3 percent), floating-point math (76.3 percent), integer math (76.1 percent), multithread (73.4 percent), physics (66.6 percent), and random string sorting (77.9 percent). Its smallest win is single-thread PassMark at 13.3 percent, where the Core 7 360's higher per-core efficiency narrows the gap.

The Intel Core 7 360 holds no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantages exist outside raw performance: integrated graphics for systems without discrete GPUs, a 15 W TDP for power-constrained mobile designs, LPDDR5X support for low-power memory, and a later release date of 2026-04-15. For workloads that require a GPU-less rendering pipeline or battery-conscious operation, the Core 7 360 provides those capabilities, but the performance data shows the Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates every measured compute task.