Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Intel Core 7 360 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H are both mobile processors built on a 3 nm process, but they are designed for different tiers of performance. The database shows a decisive overall advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285H, which wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the comparison set. The Core 7 360 is a low-power, six-core part that competes with desktop Core i3 models, while the Core Ultra 9 285H is a sixteen-core flagship that trades blows with high-performance mobile and workstation-class chips.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data does not show any benchmark win for the Intel Core 7 360. Across all seventeen head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H takes the win. The Core 7 360’s only relative strength appears in single-threaded PassMark results, where the gap narrows to a 3.2% deficit. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Core 7 360 scores 4274 while the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 4415. This is the closest margin in the entire comparison and indicates that the Core 7 360 maintains competitive per-core performance despite its lower overall positioning.

The Core Ultra 9 285H dominates in every multithreaded and throughput-oriented test. Its most extreme advantage appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 63.6%. It also shows massive leads in integer math (60.2%), floating point math (58.8%), and data compression (57.5%). Cinebench R23 multicore tells a similar story, with the Core Ultra 9 285H scoring 20781.5 against 13634 for the Core 7 360, a 34.4% gap. The Core Ultra 9 285H also leads in Cinebench R15 multicore by 56.8%, Cinebench R20 multicore by 53.1%, and PassMark multithread by 54.5%.

For workloads that depend on a single core, the Core Ultra 9 285H still leads, but the difference shrinks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 2129.5 versus 1924 for the Core 7 360, a 9.7% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the lead expands to 53.1%. The Core 7 360’s best relative performance is in the PassMark single-thread test, which suggests that lightly threaded daily tasks would show the smallest difference between the two processors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in core configuration and platform design. The Intel Core 7 360 is a six-core, six-thread part with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. It uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed in the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is a sixteen-core, sixteen-thread processor with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename.

Both CPUs are built on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ. The Core 7 360 is manufactured by Intel, while the Core Ultra 9 285H is manufactured by TSMC. The Core 7 360 uses the Intel BGA 1516 socket, and the Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket. Thermal design power also separates them: the Core 7 360 is rated at 15 W, while the Core Ultra 9 285H is rated at 45 W. That 30 W difference in the database explains much of the performance gap, as the Core Ultra 9 285H has far more power budget for sustained multithreaded work.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. Both list 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB on the Core 7 360 and 3 MB on the Core Ultra 9 285H. Shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the Core 7 360 and 24 MB on the Core Ultra 9 285H. The larger L3 cache on the Core Ultra 9 285H supports its higher core count and heavier data throughput.

Memory support is similar in type, as both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but the memory bus differs. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 360 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 7 360 offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285H offers Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are also different. The Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The release dates and launch MSRPs differ: the Core 7 360 was released in 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $426, and the Core Ultra 9 285H was released in 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $651.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core Ultra 9 285H is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 330 against 120, a 63.6% lead. This test is heavily dependent on integer throughput and cache behavior, and the Core Ultra 9 285H’s extra cores and larger 24 MB L3 cache drive the result. In PassMark integer math, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 85922 versus 34238, a 60.2% advantage. PassMark floating point math shows a 58.8% lead, with scores of 109190 and 44963.

Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 3177.5 against 1374, a 56.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 12201 versus 5726, a 53.1% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore is the closest of the multicore Cinebench tests, with 20781.5 versus 13634, a 34.4% lead. The single-core Cinebench tests show a smaller gap: Cinebench R23 single-core has the Core Ultra 9 285H at 2129.5 and the Core 7 360 at 1924, a 9.7% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a much larger gap of 53.1%, with scores of 1722 and 808.

PassMark throughput tests reinforce the Core Ultra 9 285H’s dominance. Data compression shows 335859 against 142877, a 57.5% lead. Data encryption shows 26140 against 11164, a 57.3% lead. Extended instructions show 26794 against 12390, a 53.8% lead. PassMark multithread shows 34171 against 15544, a 54.5% lead. PassMark physics shows 2513 against 1213, a 51.7% lead. Random string sorting shows 40931 against 17636, a 56.9% lead.

The narrowest win for the Core Ultra 9 285H is in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 4415 against 4274, a 3.2% lead. This result appears twice in the database as both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread. The 3.2% margin indicates that the Core 7 360’s per-core performance is close to the Core Ultra 9 285H’s, even though the Core Ultra 9 285H has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins every single-core benchmark in the set. Its smallest margin is 3.2% in PassMark single-thread, and its largest is 53.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core.

Q: How large is the multicore performance gap?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H leads by 34.4% in Cinebench R23 multicore, 53.1% in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 56.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore. PassMark multithread shows a 54.5% lead.

Q: What is the difference in core count?

A: The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do the two processors use the same process node?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process, but the Core 7 360 is manufactured by Intel and the Core Ultra 9 285H is manufactured by TSMC.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, and the margin is substantial in all multithreaded workloads. It delivers 56.8% more Cinebench R15 multicore performance, 53.1% more Cinebench R20 multicore performance, and 54.5% more PassMark multithread performance. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it leads by 34.4%. For any workload that scales across cores, the Core Ultra 9 285H is the clear choice.

The Core 7 360 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. Its closest result is a 3.2% deficit in PassMark single-thread, meaning that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 9 285H holds the edge. The Core 7 360’s advantages are structural, not performance-based: it is rated at 15 W versus 45 W, it uses a simpler single-channel memory bus, and it has a lower launch MSRP of $426 versus $651. The Core 7 360 also uses the smaller BGA 1516 socket and offers Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Gen 5 with 8 lanes.

For users who prioritize maximum throughput, rendering, compression, encryption, or any heavily threaded task, the Core Ultra 9 285H is the only choice based on the recorded data. For users who need a lower-power part with a smaller platform footprint, the Core 7 360 offers a viable alternative, but it will trail the Core Ultra 9 285H in every performance metric measured here.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Cores: 6 (Core 7 360) versus 16 (Core Ultra 9 285H)
• Threads: 6 versus 16
• Base Clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.40 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 45 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2049
• Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Arrow Lake-H
• Generation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• L2 Cache: 2.5 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 6 MB shared versus 24 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Single-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• ECC Memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 4, 6 Lanes versus Gen 5, 8 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc Graphics 140T
• Release Date: 2026-04-15 versus 2025-01-12
• Launch MSRP: $426 versus $651
• Part Number: SAE3E versus SRQAL