Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 in this comparison. Across the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 245 wins 16, while the Core Ultra X7 368H takes a single win. The average benchmark score for the desktop part is 48995, which places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part averages 40518, sitting in the 87th percentile.

The largest margins of victory for the Core Ultra 5 245 appear in the PassMark extended instructions test, where it scores 33304 against 25669 for the Core Ultra X7 368H, a delta of 29.7 percent. The data compression workload shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 5 245 posting 400942 versus 312927, a 28.1 percent advantage. Random string sorting also favors the desktop chip by 29 percent, with scores of 49140 and 38093 respectively. These three workloads indicate a substantial lead in instruction-level throughput and data manipulation tasks.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 16.7 percent advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245 across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the desktop processor scores 32924 against 28221 for the mobile chip. The single-core result in R23 shows 4648 versus 3984, also a 16.7 percent delta. The same margin appears in R20 multicore, where the scores are 13828 and 11852, and in R20 single-core with 1952 and 1673. The R15 tests follow the identical pattern, with multicore scores of 3318 and 2844, and single-core scores of 468 and 401.

The PassMark multithread test shows a 17.4 percent lead for the Core Ultra 5 245, with 38706 against 32956. Data encryption favors the desktop chip by 19.9 percent, scoring 30236 versus 25228. Floating point math shows a 14.1 percent advantage, with 120548 against 105681. The find prime numbers test yields a 13.7 percent margin, with 365 and 321 respectively. Integer math is the closest of the PassMark workloads, with the Core Ultra 5 245 scoring 91187 against 88083, a 3.5 percent edge. Single-thread performance in PassMark shows 4394 versus 4005, a 9.7 percent advantage.

The lone win for the Core Ultra X7 368H comes in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 2857 against 2569 for the Core Ultra 5 245. This represents a 10.1 percent advantage for the mobile processor. This result stands apart from the rest of the data, where the desktop chip holds leads ranging from 3.5 percent to 29.7 percent.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors by workload and platform. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is the stronger performer in nearly every measured category. Its 16 benchmark wins against 1 for the Core Ultra X7 368H establish a clear performance hierarchy. The desktop chip leads by 16.7 percent across all Cinebench tests and by double-digit margins in most PassMark workloads. For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, multi-threaded rendering, or data-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the obvious choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Core Ultra X7 368H does not offer a performance advantage except in the physics simulation test, where it leads by 10.1 percent. This single data point suggests a possible edge in specific physics-based workloads, but it does not offset the broader pattern. The mobile part has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz against 3.50 GHz for the desktop chip, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. It also carries a TDP of 25 watts against 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 245. These figures indicate a design focused on efficiency and mobility rather than peak performance.

The nearest rival data contextualizes both processors. The Core Ultra 5 245 sits within 0.8 percent of the Intel Core i5-14600K, with an average score of 48618, and within 0.5 percent of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 at 49228. The Core Ultra X7 368H is essentially tied with the Intel Core 7 253PE, which averages 40557, a 0.1 percent difference. The mobile part also sits close to the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, which averages 40431, a 0.2 percent gap. These comparisons show that the Core Ultra 5 245 competes with desktop processors in a higher performance tier, while the Core Ultra X7 368H aligns with mid-range mobile chips.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40518.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 1 benchmark, the PassMark physics test.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221, giving the desktop chip a 16.7 percent advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H supports memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 4394 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005, a 9.7 percent advantage for the desktop chip.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H differ across several core specifications. The desktop processor has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the mobile processor has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock for the Core Ultra 5 245 is 3.50 GHz, compared to 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra X7 368H. The boost clock stands at 5.10 GHz for the desktop chip and 5.00 GHz for the mobile chip.

The TDP figures differ substantially, with the Core Ultra 5 245 rated at 65 watts and the Core Ultra X7 368H at 25 watts. The socket types are different as well: the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. The desktop part supports DDR5 memory, while the mobile part supports LPDDR5X memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the memory bandwidth differs, with the mobile chip supporting 153.6 GB/s and the desktop chip supporting 102.4 GB/s.

ECC memory support is present on the Core Ultra 5 245, but not on the Core Ultra X7 368H. The PCIe lanes also differ, with the desktop chip offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the mobile chip offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different as well, with the Core Ultra 5 245 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the Core Ultra X7 368H using Arc B390. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 245 is $270; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra X7 368H. The market segment for the Core Ultra 5 245 is desktop, while the Core Ultra X7 368H is mobile. The release date for the Core Ultra 5 245 is 2025-01-06, and the release date for the Core Ultra X7 368H is 2026-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architecture families. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is based on Arrow Lake, with the codename Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake, with the codename Panther Lake, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. The generation labels reflect this split, with the desktop chip listed as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) and the mobile chip as Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H).

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core Ultra 5 245 is fabricated by TSMC, while the Core Ultra X7 368H is fabricated by Intel. The transistor count is recorded only for the desktop chip at 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². No transistor count or die size is recorded for the mobile part.

The cache hierarchy shows differences in the L2 and L3 caches. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 5 245, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the desktop chip, while the mobile chip has 18 MB shared. The part numbers are SRVFE for the Core Ultra 5 245 and SA4R7Q9EJ for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear split between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins across the majority of workloads, with its largest advantages in extended instructions, data compression, and random string sorting. These results indicate a processor suited for compute-intensive desktop tasks such as rendering, compiling, and data processing. The 16.7 percent lead across all Cinebench tests reinforces this positioning, suggesting strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance for content creation and professional applications. The desktop chip also holds advantages in encryption and floating point math, with margins of 19.9 percent and 14.1 percent respectively, which point to solid performance in scientific computing and security-related workloads.

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins only the physics test, with a 10.1 percent advantage over the Core Ultra 5 245. This single result indicates a potential edge in physics simulation workloads, but the rest of the data does not support broader conclusions about its performance strengths. The mobile chip does offer higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound tasks despite the lower compute scores. The 25 watt TDP also indicates a power-efficient design suited for portable systems, though the benchmark data does not include any power efficiency measurements.

The specification differences support the performance split. The Core Ultra 5 245 has a higher base clock and boost clock, which aligns with its wins in single-threaded tests. The Core Ultra X7 368H has more cores and threads, but the higher clocks of the desktop part appear to dominate in most workloads. The 16-core mobile chip does not translate its core count into benchmark wins, as the 14-core desktop chip leads in 16 of 17 tests. The desktop chip also has a larger L3 cache at 24 MB versus 18 MB, which may contribute to its advantages in data compression and sorting tasks that benefit from larger shared cache.