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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700HX uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm process node.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700HX supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (301.5 vs 296, a 1.8% advantage) and PassMark single-thread (4124 vs 3947, a 4.3% advantage), but the Intel Core i7-14700HX wins in Cinebench R20 single-core (1843 vs 1695, an 8.7% advantage) and Cinebench R23 single-core (2103 vs 2080, a 1.1% advantage).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core i7-14700HX has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700HX has an average benchmark score of 45953, compared to 40967 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-14700HX dominates in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. It wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with its largest margins in PassMark integer math (57.9% ahead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (31.2% ahead), and PassMark data compression (31.9% ahead). The multi-core Cinebench R15 result shows a 25.9% advantage, and random string sorting runs 20.3% faster. These results point to heavy parallel processing, compression, sorting, and general CPU-intensive tasks as the stronghold of the i7-14700HX.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins the remaining 7 benchmarks, but its victories are more specialized. It leads in PassMark find prime numbers by 51%, PassMark physics by 25.5%, PassMark floating-point math by 9.6%, and PassMark extended instructions by 5.7%. Single-thread performance also slightly favors the Ultra X7 in PassMark single-thread (4.3% ahead) and Cinebench R15 single-core (1.8% ahead). These wins suggest the Ultra X7 excels at math-heavy, physics-based, and instruction-extension workloads, plus lightly threaded tasks.

The split is clear: the i7-14700HX is the multi-core workhorse, while the Ultra X7 358H delivers targeted advantages in floating-point and single-thread scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Intel Core i7-14700HX is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-HX refresh, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. The i7-14700HX uses the Intel BGA 1964 socket, while the Ultra X7 358H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

The process nodes differ significantly: the i7-14700HX uses a 10 nm node, while the Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel. The i7-14700HX has a die size of 257 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra X7 358H.

Cache layouts also diverge. The i7-14700HX has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 33 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger on the Ultra X7, but the total shared L3 is nearly double on the i7-14700HX.

Memory support differs as well. The i7-14700HX supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X. The Ultra X7 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s; the i7-14700HX has no bandwidth figure in the database. The i7-14700HX supports ECC memory, which the Ultra X7 does not. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe configurations also differ. The i7-14700HX offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the i7-14700HX uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390.

The i7-14700HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra X7 358H does not. Release dates are separated by roughly two years: the i7-14700HX was released in January 2024, and the Ultra X7 358H in January 2026.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-14700HX | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

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

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 28 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 33 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc B390 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-01-04 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Intel Core i7-14700HX comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 131296 against 83147 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 57.9% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 31.2% advantage (24595 vs 18747), and PassMark data compression is nearly identical in margin at 31.9% (438539 vs 332508). Cinebench R15 multi-core delivers a 25.9% lead (3812 vs 3027), and PassMark random string sorting runs 20.3% faster (48544 vs 40357). Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a more modest 8.7% advantage (13059 vs 12011), and PassMark multithread is 8.2% ahead (36566 vs 33802). PassMark data encryption is essentially a tie, with the i7-14700HX ahead by 0.2% (26092 vs 26046).

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has its largest win in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 337 versus 165, a 51% lead. PassMark physics shows a 25.5% advantage (3021 vs 2252), and PassMark floating-point math is 9.6% ahead (103842 vs 93836). PassMark extended instructions favor the Ultra X7 by 5.7% (27274 vs 25718). Single-thread results are mixed: the Ultra X7 wins PassMark single-thread by 4.3% (4124 vs 3947) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 1.8% (301.5 vs 296), but the i7-14700HX wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 8.7% (1843 vs 1695) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.1% (2103 vs 2080).

The benchmark data shows a pattern: the i7-14700HX wins where thread count and cache capacity matter, while the Ultra X7 358H wins where newer architecture and per-core efficiency matter.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core i7-14700HX is the stronger choice for multi-threaded workloads. Its 20 cores and 28 threads, combined with 33 MB of shared L3 cache and a 5.50 GHz boost clock, produce decisive wins in Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. The 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 45953 reinforce its position as the higher-performing processor overall.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, with a 87th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 40967, is not without merit. Its 3 nm process node, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s support strong results in floating-point math, physics, prime number finding, and extended instructions. It also edges ahead in PassMark single-thread performance.

For users prioritizing multi-core rendering, compilation, compression, or general parallel throughput, the i7-14700HX is the clear pick from the recorded data. For workloads that rely on floating-point calculations, physics simulation, or single-thread responsiveness, the Ultra X7 358H shows measurable advantages. The i7-14700HX also offers ECC memory support, an unlocked multiplier, and more PCIe lanes, while the Ultra X7 358H counters with a smaller process node, newer architecture, and lower TDP of 25 W versus 55 W. The choice depends entirely on which benchmark categories match the intended use.