Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Processor 300: the data separates a modern mobile chip from an older desktop entry point. The Core 7 360 delivers substantially higher multi-threaded throughput and platform features, while the Processor 300 offers a lower launch MSRP and a dual-channel memory bus. Benchmark results show the Core 7 360 at the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile. The Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374, while the Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct comparisons one-sided.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 360 wins in every measurable performance category. It uses a 6-core, 6-thread configuration with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which drives its multi-core results well above the Processor 300's 2-core, 4-thread layout. The Processor 300 has a higher base clock at 3.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, but it lacks a boost clock, meaning its maximum frequency is fixed. For workloads that scale with core count, such as rendering or compilation, the Core 7 360 is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13634 and PassMark multithread score of 15544 indicate strong parallel performance. The Processor 300, with no recorded scores, cannot match these numbers.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core 7 360. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1924 and PassMark single-thread score of 4274 show high per-core efficiency. The Processor 300's higher base clock might help in lightly threaded tasks, but without boost capability and with fewer cores, the recorded data places the Core 7 360 ahead. The Core 7 360 also wins on integrated graphics, using Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus the Processor 300's UHD Graphics 710. This suggests better visual output capability for the mobile chip.

The Processor 300 wins only in platform flexibility. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory and uses a dual-channel memory bus, compared to the Core 7 360's single-channel bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support. For desktop builds with existing DDR4 modules, the Processor 300 offers compatibility that the Core 7 360 lacks. It also has a larger PCIe allocation: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 lanes on the Core 7 360. This gives the Processor 300 more expansion headroom for GPUs or NVMe drives, but it does not compensate for the Core 7 360's raw compute advantage.

Architecture Differences

The Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename from the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation, built on a 3 nm process node. The Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, on a 10 nm process node. The process difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap: the Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts. The Core 7 360 achieves higher performance with one-third the power envelope, which is expected from a newer node.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Core 7 360 provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Processor 300 offers 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. Both share 6 MB of L3 cache, but the Core 7 360 distributes more cache per core, which helps with data locality. The Processor 300 has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core 7 360 has no recorded die size in the database.

Memory support diverges. The Core 7 360 uses DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Processor 300 uses DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. The dual-channel bus on the Processor 300 may offer higher theoretical bandwidth, but the Core 7 360's recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s provides a concrete reference point. Both chips lack ECC memory support.

PCIe capabilities are a major difference. The Core 7 360 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only), while the Processor 300 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Processor 300's newer PCIe standard and higher lane count support more demanding peripherals. Socket types also differ: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile socket, while the Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Core 7 360 targets mobile systems, while the Processor 300 targets desktop builds.

Release dates place the Core 7 360 on 2026-04-15 and the Processor 300 on 2024-01-07. The Core 7 360 is two years newer. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active in production status. The Core 7 360 has a part number of SAE3E, while the Processor 300 uses SRN3J.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Core 7 360, with 6 cores and 6 threads, delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13634 and a PassMark multithread score of 15544. The Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: Does the Processor 300 support faster memory?

A: The Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Core 7 360 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts. The Core 7 360 uses a 3 nm process node, while the Processor 300 uses a 10 nm node.

Q: Which chip is better for desktop builds?

A: The Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700 and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, plus DDR4 support. The Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516 and PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes, targeting mobile systems.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The multiplier is locked on both the Core 7 360 and the Processor 300.

Q: Which chip has a higher single-core score?

A: The Core 7 360 records a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1924 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4274. The Processor 300 has no recorded scores for comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Processor 300 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 2 |

| Threads | 6 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | None |

| TDP | 15 W | 46 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Raptor Lake-S |

| Architecture | None recorded | Raptor Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Intel Processor (Raptor Lake) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | None recorded | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 192 KB | 80 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 2.5 MB | 1.25 MB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 6 MB | 6 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | None recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $82 |

| Part Number | SAE3E | SRN3J |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the two processors. However, the Core 7 360 has a full suite of scores, while the Processor 300 has none. The Core 7 360's Cinebench R15 multi-core score is 1374, and its single-core score is 193. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5726 multi-core and 808 single-core. Cinebench R23 results show 13634 multi-core and 1924 single-core. These numbers indicate a well-rounded performer across different rendering workloads.

PassMark tests on the Core 7 360 cover specialized tasks. Data compression scores 142877, data encryption scores 11164, and extended instructions score 12390. Floating point math scores 44963, integer math scores 34238, and find prime numbers scores 120. Random string sorting scores 17636, and physics scores 1213. The multithread score of 15544 and single-thread score of 4274 appear twice in the database, confirming consistency.

Compared to its nearest rivals, the Core 7 360 shows tight competition. Its average benchmark score of 18374 nearly matches the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380 (0 percent delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2 percent delta), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (0.3 percent delta), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18302 (0.4 percent delta). These margins are within noise, meaning the Core 7 360 trades blows with those chips in overall average performance. The Processor 300 has no nearest rivals listed and an average score of 0, so it cannot be positioned against these results.

The Verdict

The Core 7 360 is the superior processor in every recorded performance metric. Its 6 cores and 6 threads, combined with a 4.80 GHz boost clock, produce strong multi-core and single-core scores. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 13634 and PassMark multithread score of 15544 confirm its capability for parallel workloads. The 3 nm process node and 15 watt TDP make it a highly efficient mobile part. The Processor 300, with 2 cores and 4 threads and no boost clock, has no benchmark data to contest these results. Its 46 watt TDP and 10 nm node place it in a different efficiency class.

The Processor 300 is only preferable for desktop users who need DDR4 support, a dual-channel memory bus, or PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Its Intel Socket 1700 and desktop market segment fit existing motherboard ecosystems. Its launch MSRP of $82 is lower than the Core 7 360's $426, but the Core 7 360's performance and efficiency justify the higher price in mobile contexts. The Core 7 360 also offers newer integrated graphics with Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe), which is a clear upgrade over UHD Graphics 710.

For mobile users requiring high throughput in a low-power package, the Core 7 360 is the data-backed choice. For desktop builders prioritizing memory flexibility and PCIe expansion, the Processor 300 has specific advantages, but it lacks measurable compute performance in the database. The verdict depends on the use case: portable performance favors the Core 7 360, while desktop compatibility favors the Processor 300.