Intel Core i5-110 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison
Intel Core i5-110
Core Ultra X7 358H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i5-110 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H
The Verdict
The recorded data presents an asymmetric comparison. The Intel Core i5-110 has no benchmark entries, zero wins, and an average benchmark score of zero, placing it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, by contrast, carries a full suite of 17 benchmark scores, an average score of 40,967, and sits at the 87th percentile. The verdict is clear: the Ultra X7 358H is the only processor with measurable performance data, and it outperforms the i5-110 in every category where data exists. The i5-110 cannot be said to win anywhere; it simply has no recorded performance footprint. For anyone relying on database measurements, the Ultra X7 358H is the sole viable choice based on evidence, while the i5-110 remains an unquantified option whose actual capabilities are not represented in the data.
Where Each One Wins
The i5-110 does not win a single benchmark because no benchmarks are recorded for it. The database shows zero wins for the i5-110 and zero wins for the Ultra X7 358H in the head-to-head section, but the Ultra X7 358H has individual scores across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and Passmark tests. The Ultra X7 358H delivers a multicore Cinebench R23 score of 18,747 and a single-core score of 2,080. In Passmark, it achieves a multithread score of 33,802 and a single-thread score of 4,124. The Ultra X7 358H also shows specialized strengths: data compression at 332,508, floating point math at 103,842, and integer math at 83,147. The i5-110, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, may be intended for desktop workloads, but the database offers no evidence of its performance. The Ultra X7 358H, with 16 cores and 16 threads, clearly dominates the only available measurements, making it the winner in every measurable category: rendering, math processing, encryption, compression, and single-threaded tasks.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from entirely different architectural eras. The i5-110 uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, built by Intel, with a socket of Intel Socket 1200. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 630. The Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, on a 3 nm process node, also by Intel. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache is larger: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over dual-channel, with a much higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Arc B390. The process node difference (14 nm vs 3 nm) explains the efficiency gap: the i5-110 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra X7 358H draws only 25 watts. The Ultra X7 358H also has a higher boost clock by 0.50 GHz, despite a lower base clock. The i5-110 uses a desktop socket, while the Ultra X7 358H uses a mobile BGA 2540 package. Both lack unlocked multipliers and ECC memory support, but the Ultra X7 358H clearly targets a more advanced, power-efficient design with significantly more cache and faster memory.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark score?
A: The Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40,967 across 17 tests, while the i5-110 has an average score of 0 with no recorded benchmarks.
Q: How do the core counts differ?
A: The i5-110 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?
A: The i5-110 supports DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Ultra X7 358H boosts to 4.80 GHz, which is 0.50 GHz higher than the i5-110's 4.30 GHz boost.
Q: What are the TDP ratings?
A: The i5-110 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25 watts.
Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?
A: The Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the i5-110's 12 MB.
Q: How does the process node compare?
A: The i5-110 uses a 14 nm process, while the Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm process.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head benchmark section in the database is empty, meaning no direct comparison tests were recorded. However, the Ultra X7 358H has individual scores that stand on their own. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18,747 multicore and 2,080 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 12,011 multicore and 1,695 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 3,027 multicore and 301.5 single-core. These scores indicate strong rendering performance, with the multicore scores scaling well above single-core, reflecting the 16-core design. The Passmark results further illustrate its capabilities: multithread at 33,802, single-thread at 4,124, data compression at 332,508, data encryption at 26,046, extended instructions at 27,274, find prime numbers at 337, floating point math at 103,842, integer math at 83,147, physics at 3,021, and random string sorting at 40,357. The i5-110 has no scores to compare, so the largest win margin is effectively infinite in favor of the Ultra X7 358H. The data shows a processor that excels in parallel workloads, as evidenced by the Cinebench multicore scores being roughly nine times the single-core scores in R23 (18,747 vs 2,080). The single-thread Passmark score of 4,124 also suggests strong per-core performance, likely due to the 4.80 GHz boost clock. Without i5-110 data, the comparison is one-sided, but the Ultra X7 358H's numbers alone demonstrate a capable mobile processor.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every key specification. The i5-110 has 6 cores and 12 threads; the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the i5-110 and 1.90 GHz for the Ultra X7 358H, while boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 4.80 GHz, respectively. TDP differs dramatically: 65 watts for the i5-110 versus 25 watts for the Ultra X7 358H. The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 for the i5-110, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X7 358H. The process node is 14 nm for the i5-110 and 3 nm for the Ultra X7 358H. Cache configurations are different at every level: L1 is 64 KB per core for the i5-110 versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra X7 358H; L2 is 256 KB per core versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 for the i5-110 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra X7 358H, with bandwidths of 42.7 GB/s and 153.6 GB/s. PCIe versions are Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the i5-110 and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Ultra X7 358H. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 630 for the i5-110 and Arc B390 for the Ultra X7 358H. The market segments differ: the i5-110 is a desktop processor, while the Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor. Release dates are also distinct, with the i5-110 released on 2025-09-10 and the Ultra X7 358H on 2026-01-04. The i5-110 has a launch MSRP of $200, while the Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers and no ECC support, but every other field shows divergence. The Ultra X7 358H also has a part number of SA4RAQ9ET, while the i5-110 has SA35X. The data confirms that these are not competitors in the same class: one is a legacy desktop chip, the other a modern mobile chip with advanced fabrication and memory technology.