Intel Core i9-13905H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H decisively outperforms the Intel Core i9-13905H across the vast majority of benchmark tests, winning 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. While the i9-13905H retains a narrow edge in a few specific workloads, the Ultra X7 368H delivers a generational leap in both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance, making it the stronger choice for nearly all modern mobile computing tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra X7 368H scores 3984 against the i9-13905H’s 2020, a massive 97.2% advantage. This indicates a fundamental architectural superiority in per-core efficiency. The margin extends to Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra X7 368H leads 401 to 246, a 63% delta. These results are not incremental; they show the Panther Lake core design is dramatically more capable than the older Raptor Lake core at handling single-threaded instruction bursts.

Multi-threaded performance tells a similar story, though with varying margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 versus 20034 for the i9-13905H, a 40.9% lead. This is particularly notable because the i9-13905H has 20 threads to the Ultra X7 368H’s 16 threads, yet the newer processor still dominates. The gap narrows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra X7 368H wins 11852 to 10605, an 11.8% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i9-13905H ekes out a slim win, 2857 to 2844, a -0.5% delta for the Ultra X7 368H, suggesting that the older test is not fully stressing the newer architecture’s strengths.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra X7 368H’s dominance in compute-heavy tasks. In floating point math, the Ultra X7 368H scores 105681 versus 73434, a 43.9% win. The find prime numbers test shows an extraordinary 163.1% advantage for the Ultra X7 368H, scoring 321 against 122. Extended instructions also favor the Ultra X7 368H, 25669 to 21297, a 20.5% margin. Encryption performance is another clear win, with the Ultra X7 368H at 25228 versus 20464, a 23.3% lead.

The i9-13905H does claim three victories, all in PassMark workloads. Its biggest win is in integer math, scoring 101716 against 88083, a 13.4% edge. It also leads in data compression, 354330 to 312927, an 11.7% margin. The third win is narrow: random string sorting, 37460 to 38093, which is a 1.7% advantage for the i9-13905H per the deltaPct. These wins suggest the i9-13905H retains strengths in specific integer-heavy and compression algorithms, but they are isolated exceptions rather than a pattern.

Overall, the average benchmark score for the Ultra X7 368H is 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The i9-13905H averages 40313, also in the 87th percentile. The near-identical average scores hide the fact that the Ultra X7 368H wins by large margins in most tests, while the i9-13905H wins by smaller margins in fewer tests. The Ultra X7 368H’s nearest rival is the Intel Core 7 253PE, with a delta of -0.1%, while the i9-13905H sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, with a delta of -0.3%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is significantly ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3984 versus the i9-13905H’s 2020, a 97.2% advantage. PassMark single-thread results also favor it, 4005 to 3703, an 8.2% lead.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Ultra X7 368H wins most multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it leads 28221 to 20034, a 40.9% margin. PassMark multi-thread shows a 10.7% lead, with scores of 32956 versus 29779. The i9-13905H only wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 0.5%.

Q: Does the i9-13905H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins three PassMark tests: integer math (101716 to 88083, a 13.4% edge), data compression (354330 to 312927, an 11.7% edge), and random string sorting (37460 to 38093, a 1.7% edge).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-13905H has 14 cores and 20 threads. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra X7 368H wins most multi-threaded benchmarks due to its newer architecture.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i9-13905H has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the Ultra X7 368H’s 5.00 GHz. The i9-13905H also has a higher base clock of 2.60 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X7 368H.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for these processors?

A: The Intel Core i9-13905H has a launch MSRP of $697. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H does not have a listed launch MSRP in the data.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H for most users. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, often by substantial margins. Its single-thread performance is in a different class entirely, with a 97.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This translates to snappier application launches, better responsiveness in everyday tasks, and superior performance in lightly threaded software like many games and productivity applications.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Ultra X7 368H is also the stronger processor, despite having 4 fewer threads than the i9-13905H. Its 40.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 10.7% lead in PassMark multi-thread demonstrate that its 16 efficient cores outperform the i9-13905H’s 20 threads in rendering and video encoding scenarios.

The Intel Core i9-13905H is only preferable in very specific situations. If a workload is heavily dependent on integer math, such as certain financial simulations or database operations, the i9-13905H’s 13.4% lead in that PassMark test could be relevant. Its 11.7% advantage in data compression might also matter for archival tasks. However, these are narrow niches. For the vast majority of computing, including content creation, software development, and general productivity, the Ultra X7 368H is the better performer.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their specifications. The Ultra X7 368H uses a 16-core, 16-thread configuration, while the i9-13905H uses a 14-core, 20-thread configuration. The i9-13905H has higher clock speeds, with a base of 2.60 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz, compared to the Ultra X7 368H’s 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost.

The thermal design power (TDP) also differs significantly. The Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25W, while the i9-13905H has a TDP of 45W. This suggests the Ultra X7 368H is far more power-efficient, which is critical for mobile battery life and thermal management.

Memory support differentiates them as well. The Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The i9-13905H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data. The Ultra X7 368H also has a different integrated graphics solution: Arc B390, versus the i9-13905H’s Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

The PCIe configurations differ, with the Ultra X7 368H offering Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the i9-13905H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are distinct: Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X7 368H and Intel BGA 1744 for the i9-13905H.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is the root of the performance difference. The Ultra X7 368H is built on Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 3 nm process node. The i9-13905H uses the older Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node. This process shrink is a major factor in the Ultra X7 368H’s superior performance-per-watt.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Ultra X7 368H has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core, versus 80 KB per core for the i9-13905H. Its L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core, compared to 2 MB per core for the i9-13905H. However, the i9-13905H has a larger shared L3 cache at 24 MB, versus 18 MB for the Ultra X7 368H. The i9-13905H has a die size of 257 mm², while the Ultra X7 368H’s die size is not listed.

The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Ultra X7 368H featuring Arc B390 and the i9-13905H featuring Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. This suggests the Ultra X7 368H may have stronger iGPU performance, though no direct benchmark data is provided for graphics.

The release dates show a significant generational gap. The i9-13905H was released on 2023-01-03, while the Ultra X7 368H was released on 2026-01-04. This three-year gap explains the architectural leap from 10 nm Raptor Lake to 3 nm Panther Lake.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear winner for most use cases. Its dominance in single-threaded benchmarks makes it ideal for everyday productivity, web browsing, and office applications. The 97.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core means applications that rely on a single fast core will see dramatic improvements.

For content creation, the Ultra X7 368H is also superior. Its 40.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 43.9% lead in floating point math make it excellent for video editing, 3D rendering, and scientific computing. The 163.1% advantage in prime number finding suggests strong integer arithmetic performance for cryptography and mathematical modeling.

The Ultra X7 368H would be the top pick for mobile professionals who need maximum performance without sacrificing battery life, given its 25W TDP versus the i9-13905H’s 45W TDP.

The Intel Core i9-13905H retains a niche for specific workloads. Its 13.4% lead in integer math makes it a better choice for certain engineering simulations or financial risk calculations that are integer-heavy. The 11.7% advantage in data compression could benefit users who frequently archive or transfer large files.

The i9-13905H’s higher base and boost clocks (2.60 GHz and 5.40 GHz) might also appeal to users who prefer higher clock speeds for legacy software that is not optimized for newer architectures. However, these are narrow advantages. For the broader spectrum of computing tasks, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the superior processor, offering better performance, superior efficiency, and a more modern feature set.