Intel Core Ultra 5 235A vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 235A vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H are two distinct processors from different segments of Intel's lineup, and the benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them. The Core Ultra 5 235A wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Core Ultra X7 358H taking only a single victory in the PassMark physics test. Despite the X7's mobile-oriented design with a lower TDP of 25 watts compared to the 235A's 65 watts, the desktop-class 235A delivers substantially higher performance across nearly every measured workload, including a 121.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. Both processors have equal core and thread counts, meaning neither uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A leads in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32633 versus 18747 for the X7 358H, a 74.1% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the 235A scores 13705 versus 12011, a 14.1% lead.

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A dominates single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4607 versus 2080 for the X7 358H, a 121.5% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test shows the 235A at 4557 versus 4124 for the X7, a 10.5% lead.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel configuration and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is a higher total bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H features Arc B390 integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units. The benchmark data does not include graphics performance comparisons, so direct GPU performance cannot be determined from the recorded data.

Q: What is the release timeline for these processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A was released on 2025-07-28 with a launch MSRP of $269. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H was released later on 2026-01-04, and it has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and are built for different market segments, which explains their architectural divergences. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. It is a desktop processor built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation designation. It is a mobile processor built on a 3 nm process node by Intel's own foundry.

The 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, giving the mobile chip two additional cores. Both share the same per-core cache structure with 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs substantially: the 235A has 24 MB shared, while the X7 358H has 18 MB shared, a difference of 6 MB in favor of the desktop part.

The memory subsystems are configured differently. The 235A supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, which represents a 50% higher theoretical bandwidth figure. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the X7 358H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The socket types reflect their respective segments: the 235A uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop boards, while the X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 235A includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the X7 358H includes the Arc B390. The process node is the same at 3 nm, but the foundry differs, with TSMC producing the 235A and Intel producing the X7 358H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a comprehensive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A across nearly all test categories. The largest margin of victory appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 235A scores 4607 against the X7 358H's 2080, a 121.5% advantage. This indicates a massive single-thread performance gap between the two processors.

Multi-core performance also strongly favors the 235A. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 235A scores 32633 versus 18747 for the X7 358H, a 74.1% lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a smaller but still significant margin, with the 235A at 13705 and the X7 at 12011, a 14.1% difference. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the 235A at 3289 versus 3027 for the X7, an 8.7% margin.

Single-core results across other Cinebench versions confirm the pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the 235A at 1934 versus 1695 for the X7, a 14.1% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows the 235A at 464 versus 301.5 for the X7, a 53.9% lead.

PassMark results show consistent but varied margins. Data compression scores put the 235A at 393800 versus 332508 for the X7, an 18.4% lead. Data encryption shows 30136 versus 26046, a 15.7% margin. Extended instructions score 31625 versus 27274, a 16% advantage. Find prime numbers shows 392 versus 337, a 16.3% lead. Floating point math shows 118778 versus 103842, a 14.4% margin. Integer math shows 88626 versus 83147, a 6.6% advantage. Multithread score shows 38392 versus 33802, a 13.6% lead. Random string sorting shows 49489 versus 40357, a 22.6% margin. Single-thread PassMark shows 4557 versus 4124, a 10.5% advantage.

The single exception to the 235A's dominance is the PassMark physics test. Here, the X7 358H scores 3021 versus the 235A's 2437, giving the X7 a 19.3% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark where the mobile processor outperforms the desktop part.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the superior processor in almost every measurable performance category. Its 16 benchmark wins out of 17 comparisons demonstrate a clear overall performance advantage. The largest margins appear in single-core workloads, where the 235A leads by 121.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core, and in multi-core rendering, where it leads by 74.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The Core Ultra X7 358H, despite having two more cores and 16 total threads, cannot overcome the performance deficit in most tests. Its higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s does not translate into benchmark wins. The X7's lower TDP of 25 watts versus 65 watts positions it as a power-efficient mobile option, and its single PassMark physics win suggests some specialized workload advantage, but the overall performance profile strongly favors the desktop 235A.

The 235A also holds an advantage in the database's performance percentiles. The 235A sits at the 90th percentile compared to all CPUs, while the X7 358H sits at the 87th percentile. The average benchmark score for the 235A is 48201, while the X7 358H averages 40967, a difference of approximately 17.6% based on the recorded average scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 235A has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

The TDP differs significantly: the 235A is rated at 65 watts, while the X7 358H is rated at 25 watts. The socket types differ, with the 235A using Intel Socket 1851 and the X7 358H using Intel BGA 2540. The L3 cache differs, with the 235A having 24 MB shared and the X7 358H having 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs, with the 235A supporting DDR5 and the X7 358H supporting LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth also differs, with the 235A at 102.4 GB/s and the X7 358H at 153.6 GB/s. PCIe lane counts differ, with the 235A offering 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU and the X7 358H offering 4 Gen 5 lanes.

The process node is the same at 3 nm, but the foundry differs: TSMC produces the 235A, while Intel produces the X7 358H. The integrated graphics differ, with the 235A using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU and the X7 358H using Arc B390. The market segment differs, with the 235A classified as Desktop and the X7 358H as Mobile.

The 235A has a recorded launch MSRP of $269, while the X7 358H has no launch MSRP recorded. The production status for both is Active. The release date for the 235A is 2025-07-28, and for the X7 358H it is 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins across the vast majority of workload categories. It takes all four Cinebench tests, including both multi-core and single-core variants. It wins all PassMark tests except physics. This makes it the clear choice for rendering workloads, data compression, encryption, integer and floating point math, extended instruction processing, and general multithreaded and single-threaded tasks.

The 235A's largest wins come in Cinebench R23 single-core at 121.5% and Cinebench R23 multi-core at 74.1%, indicating particularly strong performance in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering scenarios. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4557 versus 4124 also confirms strong general single-thread performance.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins only the PassMark physics test, scoring 3021 versus 2437 for the 235A, a 19.3% advantage. This suggests a specific advantage in physics simulation workloads that use the PassMark physics test methodology. Its higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and lower TDP of 25 watts also distinguish it as a more power-efficient mobile option, though these specifications do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

For users prioritizing maximum compute performance, especially in single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering, the 235A is the clear choice based on benchmark data. For mobile applications where power draw is a primary consideration, the X7 358H's 25-watt TDP and physics test advantage represent its distinguishing characteristics. The 235A's desktop socket and 65-watt TDP position it for desktop builds, while the X7 358H's BGA 2540 socket and mobile classification target laptop integration.