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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H securing a single victory. The margins are substantial across most workloads, though the distribution of those margins reveals interesting patterns about where each processor excels.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Ultra 5 235A demonstrates a remarkably uniform advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 235A scores 3289 against the 368H's 2844, a delta of 15.6%. The single-core R15 test shows the same exact margin, with 464 versus 401. This consistency continues through R20 and R23, where every test, both multi-core and single-core, lands at exactly 15.6% in favor of the 235A. The R20 multi-core result of 13705 versus 11852 and the R23 multi-core result of 32633 versus 28221 both reinforce this pattern. Single-core scores of 1934 versus 1673 in R20 and 4607 versus 3984 in R23 show the 235A's architectural advantage is not dependent on core count.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. The largest single delta appears in random string sorting, where the 235A scores 49489 against the 368H's 38093, a 29.9% advantage. Data compression shows a 25.8% gap, with scores of 393800 and 312927 respectively. Extended instructions follow at 23.2%, with 31625 versus 25669. The 235A also leads in find prime numbers by 22.1% (392 versus 321), data encryption by 19.5% (30136 versus 25228), and multi-thread performance by 16.5% (38392 versus 32956).

Floating point math shows a narrower but still decisive margin of 12.4%, with the 235A scoring 118778 against 105681. Single-thread performance in PassMark lands at 13.8%, with 4557 versus 4005. The most interesting result is integer math, where the 235A wins by only 0.6%, scoring 88626 against 88083. This near-parity suggests the 368H's core architecture handles integer operations almost as efficiently, even while losing decisively elsewhere.

The single win for the 368H comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 2857 against the 235A's 2437, a 14.7% advantage for the mobile chip. This isolated result stands out against the otherwise dominant 235A performance and hints at a different optimization focus in the 368H's design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A records an average benchmark score of 48201, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40518. The 235A also sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 368H's 87th percentile.

Q: How far apart are the two processors in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The 235A leads by 15.6% across all Cinebench multi-core tests. In R23 multi-core, the 235A scores 32633 versus 28221 for the 368H.

Q: Where does the 368H outperform the 235A?

A: The 368H wins only in PassMark physics, scoring 2857 against the 235A's 2437, a 14.7% advantage. No other benchmark in the recorded data favors the 368H.

Q: What is the closest benchmark contest between the two?

A: PassMark integer math is the tightest race, with the 235A scoring 88626 and the 368H scoring 88083, a difference of just 0.6%.

Q: How does the 235A compare to its nearest rivals in overall score?

A: The 235A's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 with an average score of 48171, a delta of 0.1%. It also sits close to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at 48287 (delta -0.2%) and the AMD EPYC 4345P at 48470 (delta -0.6%).

Q: What rivals surround the 368H in the database?

A: The 368H's closest competitor is the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40557, a delta of -0.1%. The Intel Core 5 223PE scores 40585 (delta -0.2%), while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40431 (delta 0.2%) and the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40426 (delta 0.2%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is built for desktop systems. It uses the Intel Socket 1851. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename, and is designed for mobile platforms, fitting the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 235A uses TSMC as its foundry and carries a transistor count of 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². The 368H uses Intel as its foundry, and the database does not record a transistor count or die size for it. This difference in manufacturing partner could contribute to the observed performance gaps, though the data does not isolate that variable.

Cache configurations show notable divergences. Both processors share the same L1 cache of 192 KB per core. The L2 cache differs, with the 235A offering 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core for the 368H. The L3 cache also favors the 235A, which provides 24 MB shared, while the 368H has 18 MB shared. Neither processor supports 3D V-Cache.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 235A supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and achieves 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 368H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but reaches 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile chip's higher memory bandwidth, a 50% advantage in raw throughput, does not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

PCI Express lane allocation differs substantially. The 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 368H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. This reflects the desktop versus mobile design philosophy, where the 235A can drive multiple expansion devices, while the 368H is limited by laptop constraints.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 235A includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the 368H features the Arc B390. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 235A wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, indicating higher per-core performance.

Base clock speeds show a significant divergence. The 235A has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, while the 368H operates at 2.00 GHz. Both processors boost to 5.00 GHz, which explains why single-core performance still favors the 235A, as peak frequency is identical.

Thermal design power separates the two by segment. The 235A has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 368H is rated at 25 watts. This lower thermal envelope for the 368H aligns with its mobile market positioning.

The 235A carries a launch MSRP of $269, while the 368H has no recorded launch MSRP. Production status for both is listed as Active, and both processors have locked multipliers. The part numbers differ: SRWPN for the 235A and SA4R7Q9EJ for the 368H.

Market segments diverge, with the 235A listed as Desktop and the 368H as Mobile. Release dates show the 235A launched on 2025-07-28, while the 368H appeared later on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in nearly every measurable category. Its advantages span rendering workloads, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multi-thread performance, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The margins range from a tight 0.6% in integer math to a commanding 29.9% in random string sorting. This broad dominance suggests the 235A's architecture, with its higher base clock and larger caches, delivers superior throughput across diverse instruction patterns.

The 235A's 15.6% advantage across all Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, indicates a consistent per-core performance lead. Its 24 MB L3 cache versus 18 MB likely contributes to the 25.8% data compression advantage and the 23.2% extended instructions lead, where working set sizes can stress cache capacity.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins exclusively in PassMark physics with a 14.7% margin. This isolated result, combined with the near-tie in integer math, suggests the 368H's Panther Lake architecture has specific strengths in certain computational patterns. The 368H's higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s does not appear to help in the recorded benchmarks, as the 235A still wins in memory-sensitive tests like random string sorting and data compression.

The 368H's 16 cores versus 14 cores does not overcome the 235A's per-core efficiency. The 235A's base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz provides a substantial head start that the 368H cannot compensate for, even with two additional cores.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall winner. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H in 16 of 17 recorded benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 48201 versus 40518. The 235A's 90th percentile ranking versus the 368H's 87th percentile confirms its higher standing in the broader CPU landscape.

For desktop users seeking maximum compute throughput, the 235A is the clear choice based on every recorded metric except PassMark physics. Its advantages in Cinebench multi-core (15.6%), data compression (25.8%), and random string sorting (29.9%) make it suitable for rendering, data processing, and general productivity workloads. The 235A also offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, enabling extensive expansion options that the 368H's 4 lanes cannot match.

The 368H's role is narrower. Its 25-watt TDP and mobile BGA 2540 socket place it in laptops where power efficiency matters. Its single win in PassMark physics, with a 14.7% margin, indicates some specialized strength, but the overall benchmark record does not favor it in most tasks. The 368H's higher memory bandwidth and 16 cores represent design choices that the recorded data does not validate in performance terms.

Users targeting physics simulations or physics-heavy applications may find the 368H's advantage relevant. For all other measured workloads, the 235A delivers higher scores, often by double-digit percentages. The 235A's earlier release date and desktop positioning, combined with its consistent benchmark dominance, make it the stronger processor in head-to-head comparisons. The 368H remains a viable mobile option, but the data shows it trails the 235A in nearly every recorded test.