Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous outcome: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates the Intel Core 7 360 in nearly every recorded test. Across the 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra X7 368H claims 15 wins, while the Core 7 360 secures only 2. The margins are consistently large, often exceeding 50 percent.

In multi-core rendering workloads, the Core Ultra X7 368H demonstrates a decisive advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2844 against 1374 for the Core 7 360, a delta of 51.7 percent. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the scores are 11852 versus 5726, again a 51.7 percent gap. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 368H reaches 28221, while the Core 7 360 scores 13634, maintaining the identical 51.7 percent delta. These results indicate that the Core Ultra X7 368H delivers roughly double the multi-threaded rendering throughput across all three Cinebench versions.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 401, compared to 193 for the Core 7 360, a 51.9 percent difference. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the respective scores are 1673 and 808, a 51.7 percent gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3984 versus 1924, again a 51.7 percent delta. The Core Ultra X7 368H leads single-threaded rendering performance by a consistent margin of roughly half.

PassMark workloads reinforce the dominance of the Core Ultra X7 368H. In data compression, it scores 312927 against 142877, a 54.3 percent lead. Data encryption shows 25228 versus 11164, a 55.7 percent gap. Extended instruction throughput reaches 25669 versus 12390, a 51.7 percent difference. The prime number search test shows the largest relative gap: 321 versus 120, a 62.6 percent delta. Floating point math scores 105681 versus 44963, a 57.5 percent lead. Integer math shows 88083 versus 34238, a 61.1 percent gap. The PassMark multi-thread test records 32956 versus 15544, a 52.8 percent difference. Physics simulation scores 2857 versus 1213, a 57.5 percent gap. Random string sorting shows 38093 versus 17636, a 53.7 percent delta.

The Core 7 360 claims its two wins in PassMark single-thread tests. It scores 4274 in PassMark single-thread, against 4005 for the Core Ultra X7 368H, a 6.7 percent margin. The identical result appears in the duplicated PassMark single-thread entry, also 4274 versus 4005, a 6.7 percent delta. These are narrow victories, far smaller than the Core Ultra X7 368H leads in its 15 winning tests.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra X7 368H records an average of 40518, while the Core 7 360 averages 18374. The Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd percentile. Both processors occupy distinctly different performance tiers.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable workload. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a massive multi-threading advantage over the 6-core, 6-thread Core 7 360. The Core Ultra X7 368H leads by 51.7 percent or more in all Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, and by 52.8 percent or more in the PassMark multi-thread test. Its overall average benchmark score is roughly 2.2 times that of the Core 7 360.

The Core 7 360, however, wins the PassMark single-thread test by 6.7 percent. This indicates that in narrowly defined single-threaded PassMark workloads, the Core 7 360 has a slight edge. But this single victory does not offset the sweeping losses elsewhere. Even in Cinebench single-core tests, the Core Ultra X7 368H leads by 51.7 to 51.9 percent, so the Core 7 360 advantage does not extend across all single-threaded benchmarks.

The database positions the Core 7 360 among rivals such as the Intel Core i3-13100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core i3-14100, and Intel Core 3 305, with average scores of 18380, 18345, 18318, and 18302 respectively. The Core Ultra X7 368H sits alongside the Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and Intel Xeon 6507P, with average scores of 40557, 40585, 40431, and 40426 respectively. These rival groupings confirm that the two processors compete in different performance classes.

Users requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput should select the Core Ultra X7 368H. The data shows no scenario, outside the single PassMark single-thread test, where the Core 7 360 outperforms it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node and both are manufactured by Intel, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, with the codename Panther Lake, and belongs to the Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) generation. Both are mobile processors, but they are built on different architectural foundations.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, as each core maps to a single thread.

Clock speeds also differ. The Core 7 360 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 368H runs at a higher base frequency and a higher boost frequency.

Socket compatibility is not shared. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. The two processors are not interchangeable in a given motherboard.

Thermal design power differs, with the Core 7 360 rated at 15 watts and the Core Ultra X7 368H rated at 25 watts. The higher TDP of the Core Ultra X7 368H aligns with its higher core count and clock speeds.

Cache structures differ in the shared L3 cache. Both processors use 192 KB L1 per core and 2.5 MB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the Core 7 360 and 18 MB shared on the Core Ultra X7 368H. The larger L3 cache on the Core Ultra X7 368H provides three times the shared capacity.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 368H offers substantially higher memory bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 7 360 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports a newer PCIe generation but with fewer CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 360 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units. The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 graphics. The release dates also differ, with the Core Ultra X7 368H releasing on 2026-01-04 and the Core 7 360 releasing on 2026-04-15.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, while the Intel Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 360 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4274, compared to 4005 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, a 6.7 percent margin.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity on each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X memory.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in all multi-core workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests show leads of 51.7 percent. PassMark multi-thread shows a 52.8 percent lead. Data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number search, floating point math, integer math, physics simulation, and random string sorting all favor the Core Ultra X7 368H by margins between 51.7 percent and 62.6 percent. The Core Ultra X7 368H is the choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth.

The Core Ultra X7 368H also wins every Cinebench single-core test, with leads of 51.7 to 51.9 percent. Its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz and newer architecture contribute to this dominance in single-threaded rendering tasks.

The Intel Core 7 360 wins the PassMark single-thread test by 6.7 percent. This is its only recorded victory. For workloads that rely specifically on the PassMark single-thread metric, the Core 7 360 shows a slight advantage. The Core 7 360 also operates at a lower TDP of 15 watts, compared to 25 watts for the Core Ultra X7 368H, which may matter for systems with strict thermal budgets.

The Core 7 360 has a launch MSRP of $426. The Core Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 6 | 16 |

| Base clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc B390 |

| Release date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | SAE3E | SA4R7Q9EJ |

Both processors use a 3 nm process node, are manufactured by Intel, lack ECC memory support, and have locked multipliers. Both have 192 KB L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB L2 cache per core. Neither processor has recorded transistor counts or die sizes in the database.