Intel Core i7-14700 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records 17 direct comparisons between the Intel Core i7-14700 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The desktop part wins 13 of those tests, while the mobile chip takes 4. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, which makes this a more nuanced matchup than the raw win count suggests.

The i7-14700 dominates in integer-heavy and compression workloads. Its largest win comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 154,535 against 88,083, a 75.4% advantage. Data compression shows a similar pattern: 498,198 versus 312,927, a 59.2% lead. Random string sorting goes 54,340 to 38,093, a 42.7% gap. These are substantial margins that point to a clear advantage in productivity and general computing tasks.

Multithreaded rendering also favors the desktop chip, though the margins shrink as the workload becomes more parallel. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-14700 scores 4,061 against 2,844, a 42.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 14,388 versus 11,852, a 21.4% difference. By Cinebench R23 multicore, the gap narrows dramatically: 28,398 against 28,221, only a 0.6% edge for the i7-14700. This convergence suggests the Ultra X7 368H scales better in longer, more sustained rendering loads, despite having fewer cores and threads.

The Ultra X7 368H claims its wins in single-threaded and specialized workloads. The most striking result is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the mobile chip scores 3,984 against 2,080, a 47.8% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the Ultra X7 368H: 401 versus 299, a 25.4% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers shows 321 versus 164, a 48.9% win for the mobile part. PassMark physics goes 2,857 to 2,226, a 22.1% lead for the Ultra X7 368H.

The i7-14700 counters in other single-threaded tests. Cinebench R20 single-core goes 2,031 to 1,673, a 21.4% win for the desktop chip. PassMark single-thread shows 4,236 against 4,005, a 5.8% edge. PassMark floating-point math is nearly tied: 106,716 versus 105,681, only a 1% difference. Data encryption favors the i7-14700 by 17.3% (29,601 to 25,228), and extended instructions go its way by 10.6% (28,388 to 25,669).

The average benchmark score puts the i7-14700 at 52,301, which places it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra X7 368H averages 40,518, good for the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the i7-14700 include the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H (0.2% lower average score), the AMD EPYC 8124P (0.3% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (0.4% higher). For the Ultra X7 368H, the Intel Core 7 253PE sits 0.1% higher, the Intel Core 5 223PE is 0.2% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H is 0.2% lower.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700 averages 52,301 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40,518. The i7-14700 also sits higher in the overall percentile ranking at 91st percentile versus 87th for the Ultra X7 368H.

Q: Does the Core Ultra X7 368H beat the i7-14700 in any single-core test?

A: Yes. The Ultra X7 368H wins Cinebench R15 single-core (401 versus 299, a 25.4% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3,984 versus 2,080, a 47.8% lead). However, the i7-14700 wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 21.4% and PassMark single-thread by 5.8%.

Q: How do the two compare in multithreaded Cinebench tests?

A: The i7-14700 leads in all three Cinebench multicore tests. In R15, it wins by 42.8% (4,061 to 2,844). In R20, it wins by 21.4% (14,388 to 11,852). In R23, the margin shrinks to 0.6% (28,398 to 28,221).

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin in either direction?

A: The i7-14700 leads by 75.4% in PassMark integer math (154,535 versus 88,083). The Ultra X7 368H leads by 48.9% in PassMark find prime numbers (321 versus 164) and by 47.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The i7-14700 has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 5.00 GHz for the Ultra X7 368H. The base clocks are 2.10 GHz and 2.00 GHz respectively.

Q: Do these processors share the same memory technology?

A: No. The i7-14700 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X. The Ultra X7 368H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is listed for the i7-14700.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design philosophies from Intel. The i7-14700 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Both are built by Intel, but the manufacturing process differs significantly.

Core counts diverge sharply. The i7-14700 has 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the desktop chip supports hyperthreading, while the mobile chip does not. The i7-14700 belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, while the Ultra X7 368H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3.

Cache layouts differ in both size and organization. The i7-14700 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 33 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra X7 368H contribute to its strong single-threaded results. The i7-14700 has a much larger L3 pool, which helps in multithreaded and data-heavy workloads.

The i7-14700 uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment. The Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part. The i7-14700 has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra X7 368H is rated at 25 W. PCIe support also differs: the i7-14700 offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X7 368H offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics take different approaches. The i7-14700 includes UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390. ECC memory support is present on the i7-14700 but absent on the Ultra X7 368H.

The release dates are separated by about two years. The i7-14700 launched on January 7, 2024, and the Ultra X7 368H launched on January 4, 2026. Both are listed as active production parts. The i7-14700 has a launch MSRP of $384; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra X7 368H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to distinct use cases for each processor. The i7-14700 is the stronger all-around performer, with a higher average benchmark score (52,301 versus 40,518) and wins in 13 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its advantages are largest in integer math, data compression, and multithreaded rendering, where it leads by double digits in most cases.

The Ultra X7 368H is not a weak competitor, but its wins are concentrated in specific areas. It dominates in Cinebench R23 single-core by 47.8% and in PassMark find prime numbers by 48.9%. It also wins in Cinebench R15 single-core and PassMark physics. These results indicate strong per-thread efficiency, likely from the 3 nm process and larger per-core caches.

The multithreaded Cinebench R23 result is particularly telling. Despite having 4 fewer cores, 12 fewer threads, and a 25 W TDP against 65 W, the Ultra X7 368H comes within 0.6% of the i7-14700 in that test. This suggests the mobile chip sustains high performance efficiently, which matters for laptops where thermal and power constraints are tight.

For a desktop workstation or a system where raw throughput in integer, compression, and encryption workloads is the priority, the i7-14700 is the clear choice from the recorded data. For a mobile platform where single-threaded responsiveness and power efficiency are critical, the Ultra X7 368H shows specific strengths that matter in that context.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 20 (i7-14700) versus 16 (Ultra X7 368H)
• Threads: 28 versus 16
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz
• TDP: 65 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake
• Codename: Raptor Lake-R versus Panther Lake
• Generation: Core i7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) versus Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Die size: 257 mm² versus not recorded
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 33 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 153.6 GB/s
• ECC memory: supported versus not supported
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 4 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc B390
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2024-01-07 versus 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $384 versus not recorded
• Part number: SRN40 versus SA4R7Q9EJ

Where Each One Wins

The i7-14700 wins in every workload that benefits from high core counts, large shared cache, and high memory bandwidth flexibility. PassMark integer math shows its largest margin at 75.4%. Data compression follows at 59.2%, and random string sorting at 42.7%. Multithreaded PassMark goes to the i7-14700 by 22.3%. Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore also favor it by 42.8% and 21.4% respectively. Data encryption, extended instructions, and floating-point math all go to the desktop chip, with margins between 1% and 17.3%. Cinebench R20 single-core and PassMark single-thread also favor the i7-14700.

The Ultra X7 368H wins in four specific tests. Cinebench R23 single-core is its biggest victory at 47.8%, followed closely by PassMark find prime numbers at 48.9%. Cinebench R15 single-core goes to it by 25.4%, and PassMark physics by 22.1%. These wins cluster around single-threaded execution and integer prime calculations, which aligns with its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches and smaller process node.

The practical split is straightforward. The i7-14700 serves desktop builds where throughput across many threads and heavy data manipulation matter. The Ultra X7 368H suits mobile systems where single-threaded responsiveness, physics calculations, and power efficiency take priority. The near-tie in Cinebench R23 multicore suggests the Ultra X7 368H can handle sustained multithreaded loads surprisingly well for a 25 W part, but the i7-14700 remains ahead in the broader benchmark suite.