Intel Core i7-14700F vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall win for the Intel Core i7-14700F, which takes 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The largest single margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i7-14700F scores 4958 against 2080 for the Core Ultra X7 358H, a 138.4% advantage. That gap is unusually large for a single-threaded test and indicates a substantial difference in per-core execution capability between the two designs.

Multi-threaded workloads also favor the desktop part heavily. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i7-14700F posts 35122 versus 18747, a 87.3% lead. The pattern repeats in PassMark integer math, where the i7-14700F scores 155808 against 83147, a 87.4% margin. These results align with the core and thread counts: the i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The absence of Hyper-Threading on the mobile chip likely explains part of the multi-thread deficit.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 22.8% lead for the i7-14700F (14751 vs 12011), and the R15 multi-core test shows a 16.9% lead (3540 vs 3027). PassMark multi-thread follows with a 22.2% margin (41317 vs 33802). Data compression is another strong area for the desktop chip: 505885 versus 332508, a 52.1% advantage. Random string sorting also favors the i7-14700F by 38.6% (55918 vs 40357).

The Core Ultra X7 358H wins two tests. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 47.8% advantage for the mobile chip, scoring 337 versus 176. This is a specific math workload that benefits from the newer architecture's integer throughput per core. PassMark physics also goes to the Ultra X7 358H, 3021 versus 2455, an 18.7% lead. That test measures simulated physics calculations, and the result suggests the Panther Lake core has better efficiency in that particular instruction pattern.

Other tests are closer. PassMark floating point math shows only a 3% edge for the i7-14700F (107005 vs 103842). PassMark extended instructions is a 4.7% margin (28564 vs 27274). PassMark data encryption favors the desktop part by 15.7% (30144 vs 26046). PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 3.2% lead for the i7-14700F (4257 vs 4124). Cinebench R15 single-core is a 65.5% gap (499 vs 301.5), and R20 single-core replicates the 22.8% margin seen in multi-core.

The average benchmark score puts the i7-14700F at 53620 against 40967 for the Ultra X7 358H. In percentile terms, the desktop chip ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part sits at the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the i7-14700F include the Intel Xeon 6505P (average score 53701, delta -0.2%), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (53469, delta 0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53288, delta 0.6%), and the AMD EPYC 7313P (53206, delta 0.8%). The Ultra X7 358H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, delta -0.6%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, delta -0.6%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (40718, delta 0.6%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41263, delta -0.7%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core i7-14700F belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, and is built for desktop systems on Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake codename (Panther Lake-H generation), and targets mobile platforms with Intel BGA 2540.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The i7-14700F uses a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the smaller node on the mobile chip allows for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency. The die size for the desktop part is 257 mm²; no die size is recorded for the mobile chip.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The i7-14700F provides 20 cores and 28 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop chip therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, the mobile chip does not. Base and boost clocks also favor the desktop part: 2.10 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost versus 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies are laid out differently. The i7-14700F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the mobile chip reflect a newer core design, but the total L3 capacity is nearly half that of the desktop part.

Memory support also separates the two. The i7-14700F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also in dual-channel, and the recorded memory bandwidth for the mobile chip is 153.6 GB/s. The desktop part has no memory bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory is supported on the i7-14700F but not on the Ultra X7 358H.

PCIe connectivity differs. The i7-14700F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The desktop part therefore offers substantially more direct PCIe lanes for expansion. Integrated graphics also differ: the i7-14700F has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra X7 358H includes Arc B390 graphics. This is consistent with the market positioning, as desktop chips without graphics rely on discrete GPUs, while mobile parts often include iGPUs.

The thermal design power is 65 W for the i7-14700F and 25 W for the Ultra X7 358H. The release dates are recorded as 2024-01-07 for the desktop part and 2026-01-04 for the mobile chip. The i7-14700F has a launch MSRP of $359; the Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers and active production status.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core i7-14700F leads in nearly every benchmark category, and the margins are often large. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it is 138.4% ahead; in multi-core, 87.3% ahead. PassMark integer math shows an 87.4% advantage, data compression a 52.1% advantage, and random string sorting a 38.6% advantage. The desktop chip also wins the average benchmark comparison by a wide margin: 53620 versus 40967.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has specific strengths in two workloads. PassMark find prime numbers favors it by 47.8%, and PassMark physics favors it by 18.7%. These results indicate that the newer Panther Lake core is more efficient in certain integer and physics instruction patterns, despite lower clock speeds and a smaller core count. The mobile chip also delivers a much higher single-thread score relative to its core count, as seen in the 3.2% passmark single-thread gap, which is far smaller than the multi-thread gaps.

The choice between these processors depends entirely on the use case. For desktop workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput, large L3 cache, and high boost clocks, the i7-14700F is the stronger option based on the benchmark data. For mobile systems where power draw is limited to 25 W, the Ultra X7 358H offers competitive single-thread performance and superior results in prime number and physics tests, along with integrated Arc B390 graphics. The i7-14700F requires a discrete GPU, while the Ultra X7 358H does not.

The data also shows that the i7-14700F sits in a higher performance percentile (91st) than the Ultra X7 358H (87th). The nearest rivals for the desktop chip include server and workstation parts like the Intel Xeon 6505P and AMD EPYC 7313P, while the mobile chip competes with other mobile AI processors such as the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H. These groupings reinforce the market separation: one is a high-throughput desktop part, the other a power-efficient mobile part.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Core i7-14700F and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H:

• Series: Core 14th Gen versus Core Ultra Series 3
• Cores: 20 versus 16
• Threads: 28 versus 16
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 1.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz
• TDP: 65 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Raptor Lake versus null (not specified)
• 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 null
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 33 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: null versus 153.6 GB/s
• ECC memory: true versus false
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 4 lanes
• Integrated graphics: N/A versus Arc B390
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2024-01-07 versus 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $359 versus null
• Part number: SRN3Z versus SA4RAQ9ET

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F has 20 cores and 28 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i7-14700F scores 4958 versus 2080 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 138.4% difference.

Q: Does the Ultra X7 358H win any tests?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark find prime numbers (337 vs 176, a 47.8% advantage) and PassMark physics (3021 vs 2455, an 18.7% advantage).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: What integrated graphics does the Ultra X7 358H have?

A: The Ultra X7 358H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics. The i7-14700F has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-14700F has an average benchmark score of 53620, while the Ultra X7 358H has an average of 40967. The i7-14700F ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and the Ultra X7 358H ranks in the 87th percentile.