Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison
Intel Core 7 360
Core Ultra 7 356H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H records an average benchmark score of 41215, while the Intel Core 7 360 records 18374. The Ultra 7 sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 7.
Q: How do the two chips compare in single-thread performance?
A: The Core 7 360 wins both PassMark single-thread tests with a score of 4274, which is 5% ahead of the Ultra 7 356H's 4072. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 356H leads with 2040 versus 1924, a 5.7% advantage.
Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?
A: The biggest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 356H scores 327 against the Core 7 360's 120, a 63.3% difference. PassMark data encryption shows a 57.6% gap, with the Ultra 7 at 26345 versus 11164.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading based on the core and thread counts being equal.
Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?
A: The Ultra 7 356H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.
Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core.
Architecture Differences
The two processors share a 3 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but their underlying designs diverge substantially. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 7 356H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, uses Panther Lake architecture, and carries the Panther Lake-H generation label. Both are mobile parts with active production status.
Core counts present the most obvious architectural split. The Core 7 360 provides 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Ultra 7 356H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. That difference changes how work is distributed across the silicon. The Ultra 7's additional 10 cores give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads, which the benchmark results confirm across nearly every multi-threaded test.
Cache hierarchies also differ. Both chips allocate 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 pool is three times larger on the Ultra 7 356H: 18 MB versus 6 MB. A larger shared cache can reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data across all cores, which matters when many threads compete for bandwidth.
Memory architecture separates the two further. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 356H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s, nearly double the bandwidth. For workloads that stream large datasets, the memory subsystem of the Ultra 7 is a meaningful asset. The PCIe interface also differs: the Core 7 360 supports Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 356H supports Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.
The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 360 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores explicitly listed. The Ultra 7 356H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, though the database does not specify the number of Xe cores. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.
The socket and package differ: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540. The release dates also differ, with the Ultra 7 356H appearing earlier at 2026-01-04 and the Core 7 360 following at 2026-04-15. Clock strategy varies too: the Core 7 360 has a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Ultra 7 356H has a higher base clock of 1.90 GHz and a lower boost of 4.70 GHz.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H dominates parallel and throughput-oriented tasks. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the margins are frequently large. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 3055 versus 1374, a 55% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12153 versus 5726, a 52.9% lead. PassMark multithread shows 33978 versus 15544, a 54.3% lead. PassMark integer math shows 83111 versus 34238, a 58.8% lead. PassMark floating point math shows 103128 versus 44963, a 56.4% lead. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and random string sorting all fall to the Ultra 7 by margins ranging from 55.6% to 63.3%.
The Intel Core 7 360 wins exactly two tests, both being the PassMark single-thread measurement with a score of 4274 versus 4072, a 5% margin. That is a narrow victory, and it is the only area where the smaller chip demonstrates a consistent advantage. The Cinebench single-core results do not support the same story, as the Ultra 7 356H leads R15 single-core by 36.3% (303 versus 193), R20 single-core by 52.9% (1715 versus 808), and R23 single-core by 5.7% (2040 versus 1924). The PassMark single-thread result is therefore an outlier rather than a general single-core trend.
The data suggests the Core 7 360 suits workloads that are lightly threaded and sensitive to the specific PassMark single-thread measurement, while the Ultra 7 356H suits any workload that can use multiple cores, which is the majority of modern productivity and compute tasks. The Ultra 7's dual-channel memory and doubled bandwidth reinforce its position in memory-heavy applications. The Core 7 360, with a lower 15 W TDP versus 25 W for the Ultra 7, may fit thermal-constrained designs, but the benchmark record does not show a compensating performance advantage outside that one PassMark test.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across several recorded specifications. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads; the Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.50 GHz for the Core 7 360 versus 1.90 GHz for the Ultra 7 356H. Boost clocks differ in the opposite direction: 4.80 GHz for the Core 7 360 versus 4.70 GHz for the Ultra 7 356H. Thermal design power is 15 W for the Core 7 360 and 25 W for the Ultra 7 356H.
The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1516 for the Core 7 360 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 7 356H. The codename differs, with Wildcat Lake versus Panther Lake. The generation labels differ as well: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). The Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 7 360 has no series listing.
Cache totals differ in L3 only: 6 MB shared for the Core 7 360 versus 18 MB shared for the Ultra 7 356H. L1 and L2 per-core values are identical at 192 KB and 2.5 MB. Memory bus width differs: single-channel for the Core 7 360 versus dual-channel for the Ultra 7 356H. Memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics are both Intel Xe3, but the Core 7 360 explicitly lists 2 Xe cores while the Ultra 7 356H does not specify a count.
Release dates differ, with the Ultra 7 356H released on 2026-01-04 and the Core 7 360 on 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 360 is $426; the Ultra 7 356H has no launch MSRP recorded. Part numbers differ: SAE3E for the Core 7 360 and SA4RGQ9EU for the Ultra 7 356H. Both processors are locked, mobile, active, and lack ECC support. The Core 7 360 has a higher boost clock and lower TDP; the Ultra 7 356H has more cores, more cache, higher base clock, wider memory bus, and more PCIe lanes.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head record is lopsided: 15 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and 2 wins for the Intel Core 7 360. The largest margins belong to the Ultra 7. PassMark find prime numbers shows 327 versus 120, a 63.3% gap. PassMark data encryption shows 26345 versus 11164, a 57.6% gap. PassMark data compression shows 336177 versus 142877, a 57.5% gap. PassMark random string sorting shows 40990 versus 17636, a 57% gap. PassMark physics shows 2895 versus 1213, a 58.1% gap. PassMark integer math shows 83111 versus 34238, a 58.8% gap.
Cinebench multicore results follow the same pattern. R15 multicore gives 3055 versus 1374, a 55% lead. R20 multicore gives 12153 versus 5726, a 52.9% lead. R23 multicore gives 18395 versus 13634, a 25.9% lead. The R23 gap is smaller than the older Cinebench versions, which suggests the workload scaling changes across versions, but the Ultra 7 still leads by more than a quarter.
Single-core results are mixed. The Ultra 7 356H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 36.3% (303 versus 193), R20 single-core by 52.9% (1715 versus 808), and R23 single-core by 5.7% (2040 versus 1924). The Core 7 360 wins PassMark single-thread by 5% (4274 versus 4072). The PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread entries are duplicate measurements, both recording 4274 for the Core 7 and 4072 for the Ultra 7, so the single 5% win is confirmed twice in the database.
The nearest rival data places the two chips in different competitive tiers. The Core 7 360 has an average score of 18374, essentially matching the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 with a 0.2% delta, and the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 with a 0.3% delta. The Ultra 7 356H has an average score of 41215, matching the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 with a -0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 with a -0.4% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40967 with a 0.6% delta. The average score gap between the two reviewed chips is 22841 points, which is larger than the gap between the Core 7 360 and any of its nearest rivals.
The Verdict
The benchmark data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger processor in nearly every recorded test, with 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its multicore results are consistently 25.9% to 63.3% ahead of the Core 7 360, and even its Cinebench single-core results lead in all three versions tested. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration, 18 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel memory bus, and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth align with the measured dominance in compression, encryption, math, physics, and rendering workloads.
The Intel Core 7 360 has one narrow bright spot: PassMark single-thread performance, where it leads by 5% with a score of 4274 versus 4072. That result is duplicated in the database, which adds some confidence, but it does not carry over to Cinebench single-core tests, where the Ultra 7 356H leads by 5.7% to 52.9%. The Core 7 360 also has a lower 15 W TDP and a higher 4.80 GHz boost clock, which may appeal to specific power-constrained designs, but the recorded performance data does not show a broader advantage.
The percentile ranking reinforces the gap. The Ultra 7 356H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd. The Ultra 7's nearest rivals include desktop-class parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and it matches or slightly exceeds that chip's average score. The Core 7 360's nearest rivals are all lower-tier Intel parts, and it lands essentially even with them.
For buyers choosing between these two, the database record supports the Ultra 7 356H for any workload that uses multiple threads, which includes most modern applications, compilation, media encoding, and scientific computing. The Core 7 360 remains a viable option only for workloads that match the PassMark single-thread profile and where the lower TDP is a priority. The data does not show any scenario where the Core 7 360 wins a rendering, encryption, compression, or physics test. The choice, based strictly on measured performance, favors the Ultra 7 356H by a wide margin.