Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H records an average benchmark score of 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 360 averages 18374, which is the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 4595 versus 1924 for the Core 7 360, a delta of -58.1%. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 4453 versus 4274, a delta of -4%.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32553 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 7 360 scores 13634. The delta is -58.1%, meaning the Ultra part delivers a score roughly 2.4 times higher.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 7 360 supports single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node. Both are also active production parts and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked).

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from Intel and share the same 3 nm process node, but they represent distinct design lineages. The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename and belongs to the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. This generational split explains several structural differences in the data.

The core count is the most obvious divergence. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, since thread counts match core counts. The Ultra part more than doubles the physical core count, which directly shows up in multi-threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both chips list 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache jumps from 6 MB on the Core 7 360 to 18 MB on the Core Ultra X9 378H. That triple-sized L3 pool gives the Ultra part a meaningful advantage in data reuse and multi-core scaling.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Core 7 360 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ultra chip starts higher and boosts higher, which explains why it also wins single-threaded tests despite having many more cores to manage.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The Core Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s. That is roughly 2.6 times the memory bandwidth, which matters for compression, encryption, and other bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

PCIe capability differs as well. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Arc B390.

Sockets and packaging differ. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. TDP ratings also differ, with the Core 7 360 at 15 W and the Core Ultra X9 378H at 25 W. Release dates are close: the Core 7 360 launched on April 15, 2026, and the Core Ultra X9 378H launched on April 3, 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 7 360 records zero wins. That is a complete sweep in the database, but the margin varies widely by workload.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X9 scores 3281 against 1374, a delta of -58.1%. Single-core R15 shows 462 versus 193, also -58.2%. R20 multi-core repeats the -58.1% delta with 13672 versus 5726. R20 single-core is 1929 versus 808, again -58.1%. R23 multi-core follows with 32553 versus 13634, and R23 single-core is 4595 versus 1924. The Cinebench suite consistently places the Ultra part at roughly a 58% advantage across both single and multi-threaded runs.

PassMark integer math shows a -63% delta. The Ultra X9 scores 92603, while the Core 7 360 scores 34238. Floating point math shows a -60.7% delta, with 114500 versus 44963. Prime number finding has the largest relative gap at -66.4%, where the Ultra X9 scores 357 and the Core 7 360 scores 120.

Data compression and encryption follow the memory bandwidth story. Compression scores are 386591 for the Ultra X9 versus 142877 for the Core 7 360, a -63% delta. Encryption scores are 29840 versus 11164, a -62.6% delta. These workloads rely heavily on memory throughput, and the dual-channel 153.6 GB/s configuration of the Ultra part shows a clear edge.

Physics and extended instructions also favor the Ultra part heavily. PassMark physics shows 3404 versus 1213, a -64.4% delta. Extended instructions show 31315 versus 12390, a -60.4% delta. Random string sorting shows 44648 versus 17636, a -60.5% delta.

The closest contest is PassMark single-thread. The Ultra X9 scores 4453, while the Core 7 360 scores 4274. The delta is only -4%, which indicates that the Core 7 360 has a competitive single-thread design despite its much lower core count and lower boost clock. In multi-threaded PassMark, the Ultra X9 scores 38298 versus 15544, a -59.4% delta.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 360 and Core Ultra X9 378H differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: 6 versus 16. Threads: 6 versus 16. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 25 W. Socket: BGA 1516 versus BGA 2540. Codename: Wildcat Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H).

Cache differs only in L3: 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. L1 and L2 are identical at 192 KB per core and 2.5 MB per core respectively. Memory support differs: DDR5 and LPDDR5X versus LPDDR5X only. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc B390.

The Core 7 360 has a launch MSRP of $426. The Core Ultra X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both use the same 3 nm process node, both are mobile parts, both are active production, both lack ECC support, both are locked, and both lack a recorded part number beyond the Core 7 360's SAE3E.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is largely defined by the size of the margin rather than any reversal of leadership. The largest edges appear in heavily parallel or bandwidth-bound tasks. Prime number finding shows a -66.4% delta, physics shows -64.4%, compression and integer math both show -63%, and encryption shows -62.6%. These workloads benefit from the 16-core layout, the 18 MB L3 cache, and the 153.6 GB/s dual-channel memory path.

The Core 7 360 shows its best relative standing in single-threaded PassMark, where the delta shrinks to -4%. That suggests the Wildcat Lake design has a strong single-core architecture that nearly matches the Panther Lake part when only one thread is active. The low 15 W TDP also positions it as a lower-power option, and the 6 MB L3 cache is smaller but still functional for lighter tasks. The Core 7 360 also retains DDR5 support in addition to LPDDR5X, which the Ultra part lacks.

The Core Ultra X9 378H also dominates in Cinebench across the board, with every R15, R20, and R23 result showing a -58.1% or -58.2% delta. That consistency indicates the Ultra part does not merely win on core count; it wins on a balanced combination of higher clocks, larger cache, and wider memory bandwidth. The Arc B390 integrated graphics and Gen 5 PCIe further separate it from the Core 7 360's Xe3 Graphics and Gen 4 PCIe.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is the stronger processor in every benchmark category, with an average score of 47468 versus 18374 for the Core 7 360. Its 89th percentile standing, compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core 7 360, confirms that the Ultra part competes at a much higher level of the overall CPU distribution. The nearest rivals for the Ultra X9 include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core i7-13700KF with a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel Core i9-12900F with a delta of 0.6%. The Core 7 360, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i3-13100, Core 5 330, Core i3-14100, and Core 3 305, all within 0.4% of its average score.

Users whose workloads are multi-threaded, memory-heavy, or graphics-dependent should choose the Core Ultra X9 378H. The 16 cores, 18 MB L3, 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and Arc B390 graphics give it decisive advantages in compression, encryption, physics, and Cinebench rendering. The 25 W TDP is higher than the Core 7 360's 15 W, but the performance return is substantial.

The Core 7 360 is the appropriate pick only for scenarios where the lowest power draw is paramount and single-threaded performance is the primary concern. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4274 trails the Ultra X9 by just 4%, so lightly threaded daily tasks would feel similar. The 15 W TDP, smaller 6 MB L3, and single-channel memory limit its reach, but the Wildcat Lake core design holds up well in isolation. The launch MSRP of $426 applies only to the Core 7 360; the Ultra X9 has no recorded MSRP in the database. Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Core Ultra X9 378H is the superior processor without qualification.