Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H represent two distinct branches of Intel's mobile and desktop strategy. The Ultra 5 245 is a desktop part built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor from the Panther Lake family. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop chip dominating almost every workload, but the mobile part claiming a notable win in a specific physics simulation test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40967 on average, which puts it in the 87th percentile.

Q: How big is the gap between the two in multi-core rendering?

A: The largest multi-core difference appears in Cinebench R23, where the Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 compared to the Ultra X7 358H's 18747. That is a 75.6% advantage for the desktop chip.

Q: Does the mobile chip win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Ultra X7 358H wins the PassMark physics test. It scores 3021, while the Ultra 5 245 scores 2569, a 15% difference in favor of the mobile processor.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, so the mobile chip has more physical cores but neither supports multi-threading per core.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each?

A: Both chips are built on a 3 nm process. The Ultra 5 245 uses TSMC as the foundry, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel's own fabs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake design, specifically the Arrow Lake-S variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra X7 358H comes from the Panther Lake family, specifically Panther Lake-H, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 3. The database lists its process node as 3 nm with Intel as the foundry, but transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ in the L3 segment. Both chips share 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The Ultra 5 245 has a larger shared L3 pool of 24 MB, while the Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB of shared L3. The mobile part compensates with more cores, 16 versus 14, but each core runs at a significantly lower base clock.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Ultra 5 245 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra X7 358H uses a newer Arc B390 GPU. The mobile chip also has a different memory interface, supporting LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is higher than the Ultra 5 245's 102.4 GB/s over DDR5.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 245 is the clear winner in most compute-heavy tasks. It dominates in all Cinebench tests, including single-core and multi-core rendering. The largest edge appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 123.5%, scoring 4648 versus 2080. This suggests a substantial per-core clock advantage, driven by its 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the Ultra X7 358H's 4.80 GHz.

The desktop chip also wins every PassMark workload except physics. This includes integer math, floating point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margins range from 6.5% in single-thread performance to 22.1% in extended instructions. For users running rendering, data processing, or general productivity, the Ultra 5 245 is the stronger choice.

The Ultra X7 358H has one notable win in PassMark physics, scoring 3021 against the Ultra 5 245's 2569. This test appears to favor the mobile chip's architecture or its higher core count, despite the lower clocks. The win is isolated, but it indicates that the Panther Lake design handles certain physics simulations more efficiently.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The desktop chip's base clock is 1.60 GHz higher, which is a substantial difference for sustained workloads.

Thermal design power differs sharply. The Ultra 5 245 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra X7 358H is rated at 25 watts. This explains the mobile chip's lower clocks. The socket also separates them: the Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, confirming the desktop versus mobile split.

Memory support diverges. The Ultra 5 245 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile chip has higher memory bandwidth despite the lower TDP. ECC memory is available on the Ultra 5 245 but not on the Ultra X7 358H. PCIe lane counts also differ: the desktop chip has 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the mobile chip has 4 Gen 5 lanes.

The Ultra 5 245 has a recorded launch MSRP of $270 and a release date of January 6, 2025. The Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP and a release date of January 4, 2026. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows the Ultra 5 245 winning 16 of 17 tests. The most striking result is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the desktop chip scores 4648 against 2080, a 123.5% delta. This is the largest gap in the entire comparison and indicates a massive per-core performance advantage in rendering workloads.

Multi-core rendering also favors the Ultra 5 245 heavily. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the score is 32924 versus 18747, a 75.6% lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 15.1% advantage, with scores of 13828 and 12011. The R15 multi-core test shows a 9.6% lead, 3318 versus 3027. The trend is consistent: the desktop chip scales better across all rendering benchmarks.

PassMark results reinforce the overall picture. The single-thread test shows 4394 for the Ultra 5 245 and 4124 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 6.5% lead. The multi-thread test shows 38706 versus 33802, a 14.5% advantage. Data compression shows a 20.6% lead, 400942 versus 332508. Encryption shows a 16.1% lead, 30236 versus 26046. Extended instructions show a 22.1% lead, 33304 versus 27274. Integer math shows a 9.7% lead, 91187 versus 83147. Floating point math shows a 16.1% lead, 120548 versus 103842. Random string sorting shows a 21.8% lead, 49140 versus 40357. Prime number finding shows an 8.3% lead, 365 versus 337.

The single win for the Ultra X7 358H comes in PassMark physics. It scores 3021, which is 15% higher than the Ultra 5 245's 2569. This is the only test where the mobile chip demonstrates superiority, and it stands as an outlier against the broader trend.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most use cases. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H in nearly every recorded benchmark, with a 75.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 123.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. Its higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, and desktop-class TDP of 65 watts translate into dominant performance across rendering, encryption, compression, and math workloads. The average benchmark score of 48995 versus 40967 confirms that the desktop chip sits in a higher performance tier.

The Ultra X7 358H is not without merit. Its 16-core configuration and lower 25-watt TDP make it a mobile-focused part, and its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the desktop chip's 102.4 GB/s. The PassMark physics win indicates that it handles specific simulation tasks better, and its Arc B390 integrated graphics are a newer design. However, the benchmark record shows a 16-to-1 win count in favor of the Ultra 5 245.

Buyers should choose the Ultra 5 245 for desktop builds where performance is the priority. The data shows it is faster in all core-heavy workloads, and it supports ECC memory for data integrity. The Ultra X7 358H suits mobile systems where power efficiency and a compact BGA socket matter more than raw compute speed. The recorded numbers place the Ultra X7 358H in the 87th percentile, still a strong performer, but the Ultra 5 245's 90th percentile ranking and higher scores across the board make it the better choice for anyone who can accommodate a desktop socket.