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

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with zero wins for the mobile chip. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 245K is 54053, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 356H averages 41215, sitting in the 87th percentile. The desktop part leads by 31% in overall average benchmark score, a substantial margin that holds across every workload category in the database.

The Ultra 5 245K is the choice for anyone building a desktop system where sustained multi-threaded performance matters most. Its closest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53701 average score (0.7% behind) and the Intel Core i7-14700F at 53620 (0.8% behind), placing it in solid company for desktop workloads. The Ultra 7 356H, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0% delta) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 (0.1% ahead), showing it is a mid-pack mobile processor rather than a top-tier performer. Users needing a mobile platform with lower power draw should consider the Ultra 7 356H, but the performance data consistently favors the desktop chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages within Intel's product stack. The Core Ultra 5 245K belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process node by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors packed into a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and mounts on Intel BGA 2540 for mobile systems. It also uses a 3 nm process node, but the foundry is Intel rather than TSMC; the database records no transistor count or die size for this part.

Cache configurations differ between the two. Both share a 192 KB L1 cache per core, but the Ultra 5 245K has 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 7 356H. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the desktop part and 18 MB on the mobile part. Neither chip features 3D V-Cache. The core counts are close: the Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, so the mobile part actually contains more physical cores despite losing in every benchmark.

Memory support also separates the two. The Ultra 5 245K supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, but lacks ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the desktop chip offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the mobile chip offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ, with the Ultra 5 245K using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The desktop part has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the mobile chip is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite having more cores, the Ultra 7 356H loses all 17 head-to-head benchmarks to the Ultra 5 245K.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The largest multi-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 245K scores 25066 against 18395 for the Ultra 7 356H, a 36.3% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the desktop part leads by 26.5% with scores of 15368 versus 12153.

Q: Does the mobile processor have any advantage in the benchmark data?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark results show the Ultra 7 356H winning zero of the 17 comparisons. The closest margin for the mobile chip is in PassMark physics, where it trails by 6.4% (3081 versus 2895 for the Ultra 5 245K).

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Ultra 5 245K has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The desktop part has a 2.30 GHz higher base clock and a 0.50 GHz higher boost clock.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare between the two?

A: The Ultra 5 245K records an average benchmark score of 54053, while the Ultra 7 356H records 41215. This puts the desktop chip in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and the mobile chip in the 87th percentile.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the desktop processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a launch MSRP of $319. The database records no launch MSRP for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads against 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra 7 356H. Base clock is 4.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clock is 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. Thermal design power is 125 watts for the desktop part versus 25 watts for the mobile part. The socket is Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop chip and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile chip. The architecture is Arrow Lake with the Arrow Lake-S codename versus Panther Lake with the Panther Lake codename. The foundry is TSMC for the desktop part and Intel for the mobile part. The transistor count of 17,800 million and die size of 243 mm² are recorded only for the Ultra 5 245K; the Ultra 7 356H has no recorded values for either. L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 cache is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 only versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop part but not the mobile part. PCIe lanes are 20 (Gen 5, CPU only) versus 12 (Gen 5, CPU only). Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are 2024-10-23 for the desktop part and 2026-01-04 for the mobile part. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 5 245K and locked on the Ultra 7 356H. Part numbers are SRQCT and SA4RGQ9EU respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the desktop processor's dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 245K scores 3850 against 3055, a 26% win. Single-core R15 shows 322 versus 303, a 6.3% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 15368 versus 12153, a 26.5% lead, while R20 single-core shows 2169 versus 1715, also a 26.5% margin. The largest Cinebench gap comes in R23 multi-core: 25066 versus 18395, a 36.3% advantage for the desktop chip. Cinebench R23 single-core is closer at 2132 versus 2040, a 4.5% edge.

The PassMark suite tells the same story with varying margins. Data compression shows 458817 versus 336177, a 36.5% lead, the largest win in the entire head-to-head set. Data encryption shows 33286 versus 26345, a 26.3% margin. Extended instructions score 37617 versus 27898, a 34.8% gap. Prime number finding shows 414 versus 327, a 26.6% lead. Floating point math is 130678 versus 103128, a 26.7% margin. Integer math shows 98524 versus 83111, a smaller 18.5% lead. Multi-thread performance is 43047 versus 33978, a 26.7% margin. Physics is the closest PassMark test at 3081 versus 2895, a 6.4% edge. Random string sorting shows 55098 versus 40990, a 34.4% gap. Single-thread performance is 4714 versus 4072, a 15.8% margin, recorded twice in the database as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread with identical values.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than any reversed victories. The desktop chip shows its largest leads in memory-bandwidth-sensitive and instruction-heavy workloads: data compression at 36.5% ahead, Cinebench R23 multi-core at 36.3% ahead, extended instructions at 34.8% ahead, and random string sorting at 34.4% ahead. These results indicate the Ultra 5 245K is particularly strong for content creation, compression tasks, and compute-heavy applications that scale with cache size and clock speed.

The Ultra 7 356H, despite losing all comparisons, has one genuine advantage in the data: power consumption. Its 25 watt TDP against 125 watts for the desktop part makes it far more suitable for battery-powered systems. The mobile chip also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is not available on the desktop part, and offers slightly higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Its closest benchmark margins, losing by 4.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 6.4% in PassMark physics, suggest that in lightly threaded, short-duration tasks the mobile part is less disadvantaged. For users who need a processor in a thin-and-light laptop with modest sustained loads, the Ultra 7 356H provides a functional mobile experience, but the data shows no benchmark scenario where it outperforms the desktop Ultra 5 245K. The desktop chip is the clear choice for any workload where performance is the priority and the 125 watt power envelope is acceptable.