Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two distinct territories. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates every Cinebench workload, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins most Passmark tests. The margin in Cinebench is substantial. The X7 368H scores 2844 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 1488 for the Ultra 5 235, a 47.7% advantage. The same pattern repeats in R20 multicore, where the X7 368H posts 11852 against 6202, and in R23 multicore, where it reaches 28221 versus 14769. Single-core results follow the same shape: the X7 368H leads by 47.6% in R15 single-core (401 versus 210) and by 47.7% in both R20 single-core (1673 versus 875) and R23 single-core (3984 versus 2085). These are sweeping, consistent victories across the Cinebench suite.

The Passmark results tell the opposite story. The Ultra 5 235 wins 9 of the 11 Passmark tests, with its largest margins in random string sorting (48980 versus 38093, a 28.6% lead) and extended instructions (32752 versus 25669, a 27.6% lead). Data compression favors the Ultra 5 235 by 24.9% (390711 versus 312927), data encryption by 16.1% (29293 versus 25228), and find prime numbers by 15.6% (371 versus 321). Floating point math goes to the Ultra 5 235 with 117951 against 105681, an 11.6% edge, and multithread scores favor it by 14.7% (37816 versus 32956). Single-thread Passmark also lands with the Ultra 5 235, at 4516 versus 4005, a 12.8% advantage.

The X7 368H does take two Passmark tests. Integer math is nearly a tie, with the X7 368H at 88083 versus 87948, a 0.2% margin. Physics is a clearer win for the X7 368H at 2857 versus 2570, a 10% difference. Overall, the X7 368H wins 8 head-to-head tests and the Ultra 5 235 wins 9, but the size of the Cinebench margins means the X7 368H carries a higher average score profile in those rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14769. The X7 368H leads by 47.7%.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 4516 in Passmark single-thread, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005. The Ultra 5 235 leads by 12.8%.

Q: Which processor has better data compression performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins data compression with a score of 390711, compared to 312927 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, a 24.9% advantage.

Q: What are the core counts of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Ultra 5 235 at 3.40 GHz and the X7 368H at 2.00 GHz.

Q: How does the X7 368H compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core 7 253PE, scores 40557, a 0.1% difference, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431, a 0.2% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H for mobile, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The foundry split is notable: TSMC produces the desktop chip, Intel produces the mobile chip.

Cache layouts differ meaningfully. Both share a 192 KB L1 per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Ultra 5 235 versus 2.5 MB per core on the X7 368H. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the Ultra 5 235 and 18 MB on the X7 368H. The desktop part has more total cache, while the mobile part compensates with a higher memory bandwidth rating.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ultra 5 235 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. The X7 368H carries an Arc B390 integrated graphics solution. Both use DDR5-family memory, but the Ultra 5 235 supports standard DDR5 with a dual-channel bus at 102.4 GB/s, while the X7 368H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus at 153.6 GB/s. The mobile chip has a 50% higher memory bandwidth figure in the recorded data.

PCIe connectivity is another split. The Ultra 5 235 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The desktop part has far more CPU-attached lanes, reflecting its socketed platform.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 14 cores and 14 threads on the Ultra 5 235, versus 16 cores and 16 threads on the X7 368H. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores on both.

Base clock speeds diverge sharply. The Ultra 5 235 runs at 3.40 GHz base, while the X7 368H runs at 2.00 GHz base. Boost clocks are identical at 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The Ultra 5 235 has a 65 W TDP, while the X7 368H has a 25 W TDP. The mobile chip draws less than half the thermal envelope of the desktop part.

The socket and form factor differ. The Ultra 5 235 uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part. The X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part. The Ultra 5 235 has a launch MSRP of $257; the X7 368H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Ultra 5 235, at 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die. The X7 368H has no transistor or die size data in the database.

Neither processor supports ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 5 235 has a part number of SRQAS, while the X7 368H has a part number of SA4R7Q9EJ. Release dates differ: the Ultra 5 235 launched in January 2025, the X7 368H in January 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every Cinebench test, across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core. The margins are consistently around 47.7%, which indicates a fundamental performance advantage in rendering and heavily threaded compute workloads. It also wins Passmark physics (2857 versus 2570) and Passmark integer math by a hair (88083 versus 87948). The X7 368H achieves this at a 25 W TDP, which makes its Cinebench dominance especially notable given the power envelope.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins most Passmark workloads. Data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread all go to the desktop part. Its wins range from 11.6% in floating point math to 28.6% in random string sorting. The Ultra 5 235 also has the higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and the larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB), which may contribute to its Passmark advantages.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The X7 368H is the choice for Cinebench-style workloads, which typically represent 3D rendering and content creation tasks. The Ultra 5 235 is the choice for Passmark-style workloads, which include compression, encryption, sorting, and math operations. The two chips do not overlap much in their strengths: the X7 368H wins all six Cinebench tests, while the Ultra 5 235 wins nine of the eleven Passmark tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows two processors with complementary strengths. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the faster part in Cinebench across the board, with a 47.7% lead in R23 multicore and a 47.7% lead in R23 single-core. It wins all six Cinebench tests and adds Passmark physics and integer math. Its 16 cores, 16 threads, and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver strong rendering performance inside a 25 W TDP, and its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is the highest figure recorded for either chip.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is the faster part in most Passmark workloads, winning nine of the eleven Passmark tests. It leads by 28.6% in random string sorting, 27.6% in extended instructions, 24.9% in data compression, and 16.1% in data encryption. Its 14 cores and 14 threads, combined with a 3.40 GHz base clock, 24 MB L3 cache, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, make it the stronger all-around desktop processor for mixed productivity and math-heavy tasks. Its average benchmark score of 46062 places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the X7 368H sits at 40518 and the 87th percentile.

The overall win count is close: 9 head-to-head wins for the Ultra 5 235 and 8 for the X7 368H. The Cinebench margins, however, are far larger than most Passmark margins. The X7 368H's 47.7% leads across six tests represent a decisive advantage in rendering workloads. The Ultra 5 235's Passmark wins are meaningful but smaller in percentage terms, with only two wins above 25%.

The choice depends on workload priorities. For rendering and Cinebench-class workloads, the X7 368H is the clear winner. For compression, encryption, sorting, and general Passmark-class tasks, the Ultra 5 235 holds the edge. The data does not support a single universal winner; it supports a workload-dependent selection. The X7 368H also delivers its Cinebench dominance at a 25 W TDP, which is significant for mobile platforms. The Ultra 5 235 remains the higher-scoring part overall in average benchmark score, at 46062 versus 40518, and holds a higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 87.