Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 across nearly every workload. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Ultra 5 245 wins 16, with only one test going to the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

The most significant victory for the Ultra 5 245 comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4648 against 2040 for the Ultra 7 356H. That is a 127.8% advantage, the largest delta recorded between the two processors. The multi-core gap is also substantial, with the Ultra 5 245 delivering 32924 points versus 18395 for the Ultra 7 356H, a 79% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 13.8% edge for the Ultra 5 245, with scores of 13828 against 12153. Cinebench R15 multi-core is closer, with the Ultra 5 245 ahead by 8.6%, scoring 3318 versus 3055.

Single-core performance across other tests follows a similar pattern, though the margins are smaller. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 245 scores 4394, which is 7.9% higher than the Ultra 7 356H's 4072. The PassMark data compression test shows a 19.3% advantage for the Ultra 5 245, with scores of 400942 versus 336177. Data encryption also favors the Ultra 5 245, at 30236 against 26345, a 14.8% win.

Extended instructions and floating-point math both lean heavily toward the Ultra 5 245. The extended instructions score of 33304 beats 27898 by 19.4%, while floating-point math comes in at 120548 versus 103128, a 16.9% margin. Integer math shows a narrower 9.7% lead for the Ultra 5 245, with 91187 points against 83111. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 245 by 19.9%, with scores of 49140 and 40990. Prime number finding favors the Ultra 5 245 by 11.6%, at 365 versus 327.

The one win for the Ultra 7 356H is in PassMark physics, where it scores 2895 against 2569 for the Ultra 5 245. This represents an 11.3% advantage for the mobile chip. PassMark multithread still goes to the Ultra 5 245, with 38706 versus 33978, a 13.9% gap. Overall, the Ultra 5 245 posts an average benchmark score of 48995, while the Ultra 7 356H averages 41215. The Ultra 5 245 also sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the Ultra 7 356H.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 for any workload that depends on raw processing speed. Its wins span Cinebench multi-core and single-core, PassMark integer math, floating-point math, data compression, encryption, and sorting. The only category where the Ultra 7 356H leads is physics simulation, and even there the margin is modest at 11.3%.

The Ultra 5 245 is a desktop part with a 65 watt TDP, and it shows that design intent. The Ultra 7 356H is a mobile processor with a 25 watt TDP, which explains the lower scores across most tests. For users running rendering tasks, data analysis, or any CPU-bound application, the recorded data points to the Ultra 5 245 as the stronger choice. The 79% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is decisive for multi-threaded workloads.

The Ultra 7 356H does hold one advantage in physics processing, which may matter for certain simulation-based tasks. However, that single win does not offset the broader performance gap. The Ultra 7 356H also lacks ECC memory support, while the Ultra 5 245 supports ECC, which could be a differentiator for workstation use. The Ultra 7 356H does support both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, offering more flexibility in memory type, but its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s is only slightly higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the Ultra 5 245.

For users who need a desktop processor with high single-thread speed, the Ultra 5 245 is the data-backed pick. For those who need a mobile chip with lower power draw and competitive physics performance, the Ultra 7 356H has a role, but it is not the leader in most measured metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and use different architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is part of Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with the codename Arrow Lake-S. It is built on a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm process but manufactured by Intel. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Panther Lake chip.

Core counts differ, with the Ultra 5 245 offering 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 356H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, so thread counts match core counts. Cache configurations also vary. The Ultra 5 245 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H has the same 192 KB L1 per core, but 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and a smaller 18 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on the Ultra 5 245 may contribute to its single-core advantage.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Ultra 5 245 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The higher boost clock on the Ultra 5 245 aligns with its strong single-core results. TDP ratings also diverge, with the Ultra 5 245 at 65 watts and the Ultra 7 356H at 25 watts, reflecting the desktop versus mobile positioning.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 7 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, with the Ultra 7 356H having a slightly higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 5 245 but not on the Ultra 7 356H.

PCIe lanes also differ, with the Ultra 5 245 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the Ultra 5 245 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, and the Ultra 7 356H using Intel Xe3 Graphics. The socket types are different, with the Ultra 5 245 on Intel Socket 1851 and the Ultra 7 356H on Intel BGA 2540. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 5 245 has a listed launch MSRP of $270, while the Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4648, which is 127.8% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H's 2040.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Ultra 7 356H wins the PassMark physics test, scoring 2895 versus 2569 for the Ultra 5 245, an 11.3% advantage.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does not.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average of 41215.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 dominates in nearly every measured category. Its largest wins are in Cinebench R23 single-core and multi-core, with deltas of 127.8% and 79% respectively. These margins indicate that the Ultra 5 245 is the stronger choice for rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with CPU speed. The 19.3% lead in data compression and the 19.4% lead in extended instructions also point to advantages in data-heavy and instruction-intensive tasks. Floating-point math, integer math, encryption, and sorting all favor the Ultra 5 245 by margins ranging from 9.7% to 19.9%. For desktop users running productivity suites, content creation tools, or scientific calculations, the recorded data supports the Ultra 5 245.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a narrower set of advantages. Its only benchmark win is in PassMark physics, where it leads by 11.3%. This could indicate better performance in physics simulation workloads, which are common in certain engineering or gaming physics contexts. The Ultra 7 356H also has a lower TDP of 25 watts, which makes it suitable for mobile or power-constrained environments, though the database does not record a direct power efficiency metric. The chip also supports LPDDR5X memory, which may offer lower power consumption in mobile systems. Its 16 cores and 16 threads give it more core count than the Ultra 5 245, but that does not translate into higher multi-threaded scores in the data.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins across the board. For users who need a mobile processor with lower power draw and a specific physics performance edge, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a place, but the benchmark record shows a clear overall winner in the Ultra 5 245.