Intel Core Ultra 5 235A vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 235A and Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 occupy different corners of the processor market, and the recorded data confirms that their strengths do not overlap. The Intel part is a desktop-focused 14-core design built on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Qualcomm part is a mobile-oriented 8-core part on a 4 nm TSMC process. The database contains a full set of benchmark results for the Intel processor, but the Qualcomm processor has no recorded benchmark scores, no average score, and no rival comparisons. This asymmetry shapes the entire analysis: the Intel part can be measured against its nearest rivals, while the Qualcomm part can only be described through its specifications and its position in the broader database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A holds every recorded benchmark win in this comparison because the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has no benchmark entries in the database. The Intel part’s percentile rank against all CPUs is 90, meaning it sits above the vast majority of recorded processors. Its average benchmark score is 48201. The Qualcomm part’s percentile rank is 50, placing it at the midpoint of the database, but its average score is recorded as zero, which reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than actual performance. In practical terms, the Intel chip wins all measurable workloads, from single-threaded tasks to heavy multi-threaded rendering, simply because it has recorded results and the Qualcomm chip does not.

The Intel part shows a balanced profile across different workload types. In Cinebench R23 multicore it scores 32633, and in single-core it scores 4607. These two numbers indicate that the chip scales well when all 14 cores are active, but it also retains strong per-core performance. The PassMark suite confirms this pattern: multithread score is 38392, single-thread score is 4557, integer math is 88626, and floating-point math is 118778. Data encryption scores 30136, compression scores 393800, and extended instructions score 31625. The Qualcomm part has no comparable numbers, so it cannot be said to win any category in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at the architectural level. Intel uses Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S, part of Core Ultra Series 2, while Qualcomm uses the Oryon codename within the Snapdragon X (Plus) generation. Intel’s process node is 3 nm from TSMC, and Qualcomm’s is 4 nm from TSMC. Both are produced by the same foundry, but the Intel node is smaller. Intel’s die size is recorded at 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors; the Qualcomm die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ sharply. The Intel chip has 14 cores and 14 threads, so it has no hyper-threading, but its core count is nearly double the Qualcomm part’s 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for Intel and 3.00 GHz for Qualcomm. Intel’s boost clock is 5.00 GHz, while the Qualcomm boost clock is not recorded. Cache hierarchies also differ: Intel has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Qualcomm has 288 KB of L1 per core, 12 MB of L2 per module, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Intel part carries more total L3, while the Qualcomm part has a larger per-core L1 and per-module L2.

Memory support splits the two as well. Intel uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Qualcomm uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 135.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Qualcomm chip therefore has a higher recorded memory bandwidth figure, even though its core count is lower. Neither part supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while Qualcomm uses Gen 4 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different: Intel has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, and Qualcomm has Adreno X1-45.

The market segments are explicit. Intel is listed as a Desktop part with a 65 W TDP, and Qualcomm is listed as Mobile with a 25 W TDP. The power envelope difference is substantial, and it aligns with their respective form factors. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Qualcomm chip uses Qualcomm BGA 2073. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. Intel’s release date is recorded as 2025-07-28, while Qualcomm’s is 2024-08-27, so the Qualcomm part entered the database earlier. Intel’s part number is SRWPN, and Qualcomm’s is X1P26100.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database is empty, with zero wins recorded for either processor. That means there are no direct paired benchmark results that pit the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A against the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100. The analysis must therefore rely on the Intel part’s standalone benchmark scores and its nearest rival comparisons.

The Intel part’s strongest recorded results come from Cinebench and PassMark. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 32633, and R20 multicore delivers 13705. R15 multicore comes in at 3289. Single-core results are also strong: R23 single-core is 4607, R20 single-core is 1934, and R15 single-core is 464. PassMark results reinforce the same picture. Integer math reaches 88626, floating-point math reaches 118778, and the extended instructions test reaches 31625. Data compression is particularly high at 393800, while data encryption is 30136. Find prime numbers scores 392, physics scores 2437, and random string sorting scores 49489. The multithread PassMark score is 38392, and the single-thread score is 4557.

The nearest rival data for the Intel part provides context. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 has an average score of 48171, which is 0.1% behind the Intel chip’s 48201. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX averages 48287, which is 0.2% ahead of the Intel part in this comparison. The AMD EPYC 4345P averages 48470, which is 0.6% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900 averages 47918, which is 0.6% behind. These deltas show that the Core Ultra 5 235A sits within a tight cluster of comparable processors, with all four rivals within roughly a percentage point of its average score. The Qualcomm part has no nearest rivals listed, and its average score is zero, so no similar comparison is possible for it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Intel part is built on a 3 nm TSMC process. The Qualcomm part is built on a 4 nm TSMC process.

Q: Does the Qualcomm processor have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has an empty benchmarks list, an average score of zero, and no nearest rivals. The Intel part has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark scores.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score is 48201. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 is 0.1% behind, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is 0.2% ahead, the AMD EPYC 4345P is 0.6% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 is 0.6% behind.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The Intel part supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Qualcomm part supports LPDDR5X with 135.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel buses.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is rated at 65 W. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 is rated at 25 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the only one of the two with recorded performance measurements, and its results place it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 48201. It delivers 32633 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 4607 in R23 single-core, and 38392 in PassMark multithread. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 and AMD Ryzen 9 3900, are all within 0.6% of its average score, which shows it competes directly with established desktop and mobile hybrid parts. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 has no benchmark data, no average score, and no rival list, so its recorded position is limited to a 50th percentile rank and a set of specifications. Users who need measured multi-threaded performance, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, 24 MB of L3 cache, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity would find the Intel part better represented in the database. Users who prioritize lower power draw, with a 25 W TDP, and higher memory bandwidth, at 135.2 GB/s, would see those advantages in the Qualcomm part’s specifications, but no benchmark evidence supports a performance claim. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the measured performer, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 remains a specification-only entry.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 5 235A | Qualcomm Snapdragon X1P-26-100 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 14 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | Not recorded |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Qualcomm BGA 2073 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Not recorded |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Oryon |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Snapdragon X (Plus) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 288 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 12 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 135.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU | Adreno X1-45 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2025-07-28 | 2024-08-27 |

| Launch MSRP | $269 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SRWPN | X1P26100 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 90 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 48201 | 0 |