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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not register a single victory in any measured test. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, ranging from a narrow 2% advantage to a substantial 38% gap.

The largest single advantage appears in PassMark data compression, where the Ultra 5 245K scores 458,817 against 332,508 for the Ultra X7 358H, a delta of 38%. This pattern repeats in extended instructions, where the desktop part leads 37,617 to 27,274, a 37.9% difference. Random string sorting follows closely, with the Ultra 5 245K at 55,098 versus 40,357, a 36.5% gap. These three workloads share a common trait: they rely heavily on sustained multi-threaded throughput and memory bandwidth, areas where the desktop chip's higher power envelope and platform support provide clear advantages.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce the same story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 245K delivers 25,066 points compared to 18,747 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 33.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 27.9% gap (15,368 versus 12,011), while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 27.2% gap (3,850 versus 3,027). The progression across these three Cinebench versions indicates that the performance difference remains consistent regardless of the specific rendering workload version.

PassMark multi-thread confirms the trend with a 27.4% advantage (43,047 versus 33,802). Data encryption shows a 27.8% gap (33,286 versus 26,046), and floating point math shows a 25.8% gap (130,678 versus 103,842). Integer math trails at 18.5% (98,524 versus 83,147), while find prime numbers shows a 22.8% gap (414 versus 337).

Single-threaded results are closer but still favor the Ultra 5 245K. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a 2.5% gap (2,132 versus 2,080), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 6.8% gap (322 versus 301.5). PassMark single-thread shows a 14.3% gap (4,714 versus 4,124). Physics testing shows the narrowest margin at 2% (3,081 versus 3,021). These smaller gaps suggest that the two processors have comparable per-core efficiency, with the desktop chip's advantage growing primarily when more cores and higher sustained clocks come into play.

The most notable outlier is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Ultra 5 245K leads by 28% (2,169 versus 1,695). This is unusually large compared to the other single-thread tests, indicating that this particular workload responds strongly to the Ultra 5 245K's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Ultra X7 358H.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins in every measured category. There is no workload in the recorded data where the Ultra X7 358H takes the lead. The closest contests are physics and Cinebench R23 single-core, both at roughly 2% to 2.5% gaps, but even these favor the desktop part.

The Ultra 5 245K shows its strongest advantages in data compression, extended instructions, random string sorting, and multi-core rendering. These workloads benefit from the combination of 14 cores, a 24 MB shared L3 cache, and a 125 W TDP that allows sustained high-frequency operation. The desktop chip's memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while lower than the mobile part's 153.6 GB/s, is paired with a larger cache hierarchy and higher clock speeds, which appears to matter more in these tests.

The Ultra X7 358H, despite having 16 cores versus 14, cannot overcome the clock speed and power delivery disadvantages. Its base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz are both lower than the Ultra 5 245K's 4.20 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The mobile chip's 25 W TDP limits sustained performance, and the recorded data reflects this in every multi-threaded test where the desktop part leads by 18% to 38%.

For single-threaded workloads, the gap narrows considerably. The Ultra X7 358H comes within 2.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core and within 6.8% in Cinebench R15 single-core. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, the mobile processor is nearly competitive, likely due to the efficiency of its Panther Lake architecture on the same 3 nm process node. However, the Ultra 5 245K still holds the edge in all recorded single-thread tests.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in multi-core rendering?

A: The Ultra 5 245K leads by 33.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (25,066 versus 18,747), by 27.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (15,368 versus 12,011), and by 27.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3,850 versus 3,027).

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

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins every comparison. The Ultra X7 358H records zero victories.

Q: How close are the single-threaded scores?

A: The closest single-thread test is Cinebench R23, where the Ultra 5 245K leads by 2.5% (2,132 versus 2,080). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 6.8% gap (322 versus 301.5). PassMark single-thread shows a 14.3% gap (4,714 versus 4,124).

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores. Both have the same number of threads as cores (16 and 14 respectively), meaning neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data compression, where the Ultra 5 245K scores 458,817 versus 332,508, a 38% advantage. Extended instructions follow at 37.9% (37,617 versus 27,274).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 245K has an average benchmark score of 54,053, while the Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967. The desktop part sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the mobile part sits at the 87th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K uses 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports hyperthreading, so thread counts match core counts.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Ultra 5 245K has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The desktop chip also carries a 125 W TDP versus 25 W for the mobile chip.

The socket and platform differ completely. The Ultra 5 245K uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The desktop part has an unlocked multiplier, while the mobile part is locked. The Ultra 5 245K supports ECC memory; the Ultra X7 358H does not.

Memory support differs in type and bandwidth. The Ultra 5 245K 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. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Ultra 5 245K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 245K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics. The Ultra 5 245K was released on 2024-10-23 with a launch MSRP of $319. The Ultra X7 358H was released on 2026-01-04 with no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and uses the Arrow Lake architecture. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake-H, and uses the Panther Lake architecture. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries: the Ultra 5 245K is fabricated by TSMC, while the Ultra X7 358H is fabricated by Intel.

The Ultra 5 245K has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra X7 358H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. Cache configurations are similar at the lower levels: both have 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs, with the Ultra 5 245K featuring 24 MB shared L3 versus 18 MB shared L3 for the Ultra X7 358H.

The market segments differ fundamentally. The Ultra 5 245K is a desktop processor, while the Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor. This explains the TDP difference (125 W versus 25 W), the socket difference, and the memory type difference. The desktop part is designed for sustained high-power operation with a large cooler, while the mobile part is designed for battery-powered systems with limited cooling.

The generation naming also differs: the Ultra 5 245K is listed as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake), while the Ultra X7 358H is listed as Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H). The part numbers are SRQCT for the desktop chip and SA4RAQ9ET for the mobile chip.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H in every single recorded test, with advantages ranging from 2% to 38%. The desktop chip's higher clock speeds, larger L3 cache, and 125 W power envelope deliver consistently stronger results across rendering, encryption, compression, and math workloads.

The Ultra 5 245K sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 54,053. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6505P (0.7% ahead), the Intel Core i7-14700F (0.8% ahead), and the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.1% ahead). The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D trails by 1.3%. This places the desktop chip in a competitive position among high-end desktop processors.

The Ultra X7 358H sits at the 87th percentile with an average score of 40,967. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.6% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (0.7% ahead). The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G trails by 0.6%. The mobile chip performs well within its segment, but it cannot match the desktop part's raw throughput.

For users choosing between these two, the data supports the Ultra 5 245K for any workload where raw performance matters. The desktop chip wins in multi-core rendering by 27% to 34%, in data compression by 38%, and in encryption by 27.8%. Even in single-threaded tasks, where the mobile chip comes closest, the Ultra 5 245K still holds a lead in every test.

The Ultra X7 358H offers a different trade-off: 16 cores in a 25 W mobile package with higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and newer release date (2026-01-04 versus 2024-10-23). These characteristics suit thin-and-light systems, but the recorded benchmarks show no workload where the mobile chip's advantages translate into a performance win.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the stronger processor in every measured category. The only reasons to select the Ultra X7 358H would be platform requirements for a mobile form factor, not performance expectations.