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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H taking only a single victory. The margins, however, vary dramatically depending on the workload, and the single exception reveals an interesting behavioral difference.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 single-core testing. The Ultra 5 245HX scores 4568 points against the Ultra X7 358H's 2080 points, a delta of 119.6%. This is the largest margin recorded across all tests. The R23 multi-core test shows the second-largest gap, with the 245HX scoring 32358 versus 18747 for the 358H, a 72.6% advantage. These two results alone establish the 245HX as the dominant processor for sustained CPU rendering workloads.

The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 52.6% lead for the 245HX (460 versus 301.5), while R20 single-core shows a 13.2% advantage (1918 versus 1695). The R20 multi-core test gives the 245HX a 13.1% edge (13590 versus 12011), and R15 multi-core a more modest 7.7% lead (3261 versus 3027). The progression across Cinebench versions is telling: the newer the test generation, the larger the 245HX's advantage, particularly in single-threaded work.

PassMark results follow a similar pattern. The 245HX leads in data compression by 18.2% (393071 versus 332508), in floating point math by 16.3% (120735 versus 103842), in data encryption by 15.3% (30022 versus 26046), and in extended instructions by 14.4% (31212 versus 27274). Integer math shows a 10.8% gap (92150 versus 83147), while multithread performance is 12.6% higher on the 245HX (38069 versus 33802). Random string sorting favors the 245HX by 18% (47616 versus 40357), and single-thread PassMark shows an 8.7% lead (4481 versus 4124). The smallest PassMark margin is in find prime numbers, where the 245HX scores 359 against 337, a 6.5% difference.

The single win for the Ultra X7 358H comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 3021 against the 245HX's 2526. That is a 16.4% advantage for the 358H. Physics simulation is a specialized workload, and this result suggests the 358H has a particular efficiency characteristic that favors this test, even though it loses nearly every other comparison.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall gap. The 245HX has an average benchmark score of 48287, placing it at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The 358H averages 40967, sitting at the 87th percentile. That is a difference of 7320 points, or roughly 17.9% in the 245HX's favor. The nearest rivals for the 245HX include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A (48201, 0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 (48171, 0.2% behind), the AMD EPYC 4345P (48470, 0.4% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.7% ahead). The 358H's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, 0.6% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, 0.6% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (40718, 0.6% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41263, 0.7% ahead).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has an average benchmark score of 48287, compared to 40967 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The 245HX also sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the 358H sits at the 87th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core testing. The 245HX scores 4568, while the 358H scores 2080, giving the 245HX a 119.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Ultra X7 358H win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, the 358H wins PassMark physics with a score of 3021 against the 245HX's 2526, a 16.4% advantage. This is the only test out of 17 where the 358H comes out ahead.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 245HX leads in all multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 32358 versus 18747 (72.6% ahead), and in PassMark multithread it scores 38069 versus 33802 (12.6% ahead).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The 245HX's closest competitors are the AMD EPYC 4345P (0.4% ahead), the Intel Core i5-14600K (0.7% ahead), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 (both 0.2% behind). The 358H's closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (0.6% behind) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (all 0.6% to 0.7% ahead).

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread PassMark score?

A: The 245HX scores 4481 in PassMark single-thread, compared to 4124 for the 358H, an 8.7% advantage.

The Verdict

The data shows a decisive overall winner. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H in 16 of 17 benchmarks, with an average benchmark score advantage of 7320 points. The 245HX's percentile ranking of 90 versus 87 places it clearly above the 358H in the broader CPU landscape.

The 245HX is the choice for workloads that depend on raw CPU throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32358 versus 18747 represents a 72.6% advantage, and its R23 single-core lead of 119.6% is the largest margin in the entire comparison. For rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, and general productivity, the 245HX is consistently and often substantially ahead.

The 358H has a narrower appeal. Its only winning result, PassMark physics at 3021 versus 2526, indicates a specialized strength in physics simulation. Its average benchmark score of 40967 is lower, and its percentile placement of 87 reflects a mid-high position rather than a top-tier one. The 358H also has a lower TDP of 25 watts compared to 55 watts for the 245HX, which suggests it sips less power, but the benchmark data does not include power consumption measurements to quantify that trade-off.

For a user prioritizing maximum performance across nearly every measured workload, the 245HX is the clear selection. For a user whose workload is dominated by physics simulation and who values the lower 25-watt TDP, the 358H has a specific justification. Otherwise, the recorded data consistently favors the 245HX.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the 245HX runs at 3.10 GHz, the 358H at 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks also favor the 245HX, with 5.10 GHz against 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power is another point of divergence. The 245HX carries a 55-watt TDP, while the 358H is rated at 25 watts. The sockets are different: the 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114, the 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. Memory support also differs: the 245HX supports DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the 358H supports LPDDR5X with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe lane counts are very different. The 245HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 358H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics units are distinct: the 245HX features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU, while the 358H features Arc B390. The multiplier is unlocked on the 245HX but locked on the 358H. Release dates differ by roughly a year: the 245HX launched on 2025-01-12, the 358H on 2026-01-04. Part numbers also differ: SRVFM for the 245HX, SA4RAQ9ET for the 358H.

Architecture Differences

The architectural story is one of two different Intel generations. The 245HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-HX, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. The 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the codename Panther Lake with the generation designation Panther Lake-H, and is also on a 3 nm process node but fabricated by Intel's own foundry.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the 245HX. It has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 358H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. This is a notable difference: the 245HX uses TSMC's 3 nm process, while the 358H uses Intel's 3 nm process, and the recorded data does not indicate whether Intel's process yields a comparable die size.

Cache organization shows both similarities and differences. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the 245HX has 24 MB shared, while the 358H has 18 MB shared. Neither has vCache 3D or a recorded total L3 figure. The larger L3 cache on the 245HX aligns with its generally higher benchmark performance, particularly in multi-threaded and memory-sensitive workloads.

ECC memory support is absent on both processors. Both are mobile market segments and both are marked as active in production. The architecture difference extends to the memory controller as well: the 245HX pairs DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the 358H pairs LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The higher bandwidth on the 358H does not translate into benchmark wins, however, as the 245HX's higher clock speeds and larger cache appear to dominate in the recorded tests. The 358H's lower base clock of 1.90 GHz, despite having two more cores, contributes to its deficit in nearly every benchmark.