Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 6. However, the nature of those wins matters more than the count. The Ultra 5 235 dominates in PassMark productivity and math workloads, while the Ultra 7 356H delivers decisive victories in Cinebench rendering tests, particularly in multi-core scenarios.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Ultra 5 235 records an average score of 46,062, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 7 356H averages 41,215, sitting in the 87th percentile. The database shows the Ultra 5 235 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4364P, while the Ultra 7 356H matches the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 exactly and trails the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X by 0.4%.

The desktop-oriented Ultra 5 235 is the pick for single-threaded responsiveness, PassMark math throughput, and data compression work. The mobile Ultra 7 356H is the pick for Cinebench rendering, where its multi-core scores are dramatically higher. The data suggests the Ultra 7 356H has a different workload profile, one that favors sustained rendering over the bursty math operations where the Ultra 5 235 excels.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Ultra 5 235 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It uses a desktop socket, Intel Socket 1851, and carries a 65 TDP. The Ultra 7 356H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, built on Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. It uses the mobile Intel BGA 2540 socket and carries a 25 TDP.

Both chips are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Ultra 5 235 is manufactured by TSMC and contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 7 356H is manufactured by Intel, and the database does not record transistor count or die size for it.

Core configurations differ as well. The Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip supports simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 5 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The desktop part runs at higher clocks, while the mobile part relies on more cores.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The Ultra 5 235 has 3 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 235 therefore has more cache at every level beyond L1.

Memory support differs. The Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 7 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both are dual-channel, but the Ultra 7 356H records a higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 235. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ. The Ultra 5 235 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 5 235 is unlocked at a launch MSRP of $257; the Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show the Ultra 7 356H's strongest territory. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 3,055 against 1,488 for the Ultra 5 235, a 51.3% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 12,153 against 6,202, a 49% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 303 against 210, a 30.7% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 1,715 against 875, another 49% lead.

The Cinebench R23 results narrow the gap. In multi-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 18,395 against 14,769, a 19.7% lead. In single-core, the Ultra 5 235 takes its first win: 2,085 against 2,040, a 2.2% edge. This single-core win suggests the Ultra 5 235's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz helps it in newer Cinebench single-threaded tests, even though the Ultra 7 356H wins older single-core Cinebench tests by wide margins.

PassMark results flip the picture. The Ultra 5 235 wins 10 of 12 PassMark tests. Data compression shows 390,711 versus 336,177, a 16.2% lead. Data encryption shows 29,293 versus 26,345, an 11.2% lead. Extended instructions show 32,752 versus 27,898, a 17.4% lead. Find prime numbers shows 371 versus 327, a 13.5% lead. Floating point math shows 117,951 versus 103,128, a 14.4% lead. Integer math shows 87,948 versus 83,111, a 5.8% lead. Multithread shows 37,816 versus 33,978, an 11.3% lead. Random string sorting shows 48,980 versus 40,990, a 19.5% lead. Single-thread shows 4,516 versus 4,072, a 10.9% lead.

The one PassMark test the Ultra 7 356H wins is physics: 2,895 versus 2,570, an 11.2% lead. This single physics win, combined with the Cinebench sweep, indicates the Ultra 7 356H has an advantage in workloads that stress sustained multi-core execution. The Ultra 5 235's PassMark wins suggest it handles bursty, mixed math workloads better despite having fewer cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 records an average benchmark score of 46,062, compared to 41,215 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H. The Ultra 5 235 sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 356H sits in the 87th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 18,395, which is 19.7% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235's 14,769. This is the smallest multi-core gap among the three Cinebench versions tested.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark single-thread tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 4,516 in PassMark single-thread, a 10.9% lead over the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H's 4,072. The same margins appear in both recorded single-thread entries.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has a 65 TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a 25 TDP. The Ultra 7 356H is designed for mobile use with a BGA 2540 socket, while the Ultra 5 235 is a desktop part on Socket 1851.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB. The Ultra 5 235 also has 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB per core for the Ultra 7 356H.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 356H records higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 235.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins in PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. These are the workloads that benefit from the chip's higher clock speeds: 3.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The 24 MB of L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 likely contribute to its strength in data compression, where it leads by 16.2%, and random string sorting, where it leads by 19.5%. Its 17,800 million transistors on a TSMC 3 nm node support heavy math throughput.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, R15 single-core, R20 single-core, and PassMark physics. The multi-core Cinebench wins are substantial: 51.3% in R15 and 49% in R20. These results come from the chip's 16 cores, two more than the Ultra 5 235, and its 16 threads. The PassMark physics win of 11.2% reinforces the pattern. The Ultra 7 356H's lower base clock of 1.90 GHz does not prevent it from winning rendering workloads, suggesting the Panther Lake architecture handles sustained multi-core loads efficiently despite the lower frequency.

The split is clean. Desktop users working with math, compression, encryption, and general single-threaded tasks should look toward the Ultra 5 235. Users rendering scenes in Cinebench or running physics simulations should look toward the Ultra 7 356H. The data shows no single processor dominates all workloads; the choice depends entirely on the workload mix.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification category. The Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 5 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The TDP is 65 for the Ultra 5 235 and 25 for the Ultra 7 356H.

The socket differs: Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5 235 versus Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 7 356H. The architecture differs: Arrow Lake for the Ultra 5 235 versus Panther Lake for the Ultra 7 356H. The foundry differs: TSMC for the Ultra 5 235 versus Intel for the Ultra 7 356H. The Ultra 5 235 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Ultra 7 356H has neither recorded.

Cache differs at L2 and L3. The Ultra 5 235 has 3 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support differs: the Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth differs: 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 235 versus 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 7 356H. PCIe lanes differ: Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Ultra 5 235 versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the Ultra 7 356H.

Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU for the Ultra 5 235 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Ultra 7 356H. The market segment differs: Desktop for the Ultra 5 235 versus Mobile for the Ultra 7 356H. Release dates differ: 2025-01-06 for the Ultra 5 235 versus 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 7 356H. The Ultra 5 235 has a launch MSRP of $257, while the Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers differ: SRQAS for the Ultra 5 235 and SA4RGQ9EU for the Ultra 7 356H.