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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K dominating most multi-threaded and throughput-oriented tests, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H takes a decisive lead in single-core performance in newer Cinebench versions.

The Core Ultra 5 245K wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. Its largest margin comes in PassMark data compression, where it scores 458,817 against the X7 368H's 312,927, a 46.6% advantage. PassMark extended instructions shows a nearly identical gap: 37,617 versus 25,669, also 46.5% ahead. Random string sorting follows at 44.6% (55,098 versus 38,093). These three tests represent the biggest wins for the desktop part.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 245K scores 3,850 versus 2,844, a 35.4% lead. PassMark data encryption shows 33,286 versus 25,228, a 31.9% margin. The PassMark multithread test records 43,047 against 32,956, a 30.6% advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 29.7% lead (15,368 versus 11,852), and find prime numbers delivers a 29% edge (414 versus 321). Floating point math favors the 245K by 23.7% (130,678 versus 105,681), with single-thread PassMark at 17.7% (4,714 versus 4,005). Integer math is closer at 11.9% (98,524 versus 88,083), and physics shows a modest 7.8% win (3,081 versus 2,857).

The X7 368H takes three wins, and they are substantial. Cinebench R23 single-core is its standout: 3,984 versus 2,132, a 46.5% advantage. That is the single largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark set. Cinebench R23 multicore also goes to the mobile chip: 28,221 versus 25,066, an 11.2% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 19.7% edge (401 versus 322). Notably, the X7 368H wins R23 multicore despite losing R15 and R20 multicore, which suggests the workload scaling differs significantly between test versions.

The average benchmark score tells the overall story: the 245K averages 54,053 points, placing it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The X7 368H averages 40,518 points, at the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 245K include the Intel Xeon 6505P at 53,701 (0.7% behind), the Intel Core i7-14700F at 53,620 (0.8% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54,762 (1.3% ahead). The X7 368H sits close to the Intel Core 7 253PE (40,557, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core 5 223PE (40,585, 0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431, 0.2% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel families. The Core Ultra 5 245K belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S desktop codename. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H mobile codename. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC fabricates the 245K, while Intel fabricates the X7 368H.

Core counts differ. The 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses Hyper-Threading, so threads equal cores on both. The desktop part has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz against 2.00 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz against 5.00 GHz. The X7 368H compensates with more cores and a much lower thermal envelope.

Cache layout differs as well. Both parts use 192 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 245K versus 2.5 MB per core on the X7 368H. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the desktop chip versus 18 MB shared on the mobile chip. The transistor count and die size are recorded for the 245K (17,800 million transistors, 243 mm²) but not listed for the X7 368H.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 245K runs DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The X7 368H runs LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC. The mobile part delivers 50% more memory bandwidth despite having less cache and fewer resources, which matters for certain workloads.

PCIe lane allocation also differs. The 245K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The X7 368H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ: the 245K carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the X7 368H carries the newer Arc B390.

Socket and packaging are entirely different. The 245K uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier. The X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540, is soldered for mobile use, and has a locked multiplier. The 245K launched on 2024-10-23 with a launch MSRP of $319. The X7 368H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP. The 245K has part number SRQCT; the X7 368H has SA4R7Q9EJ.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance in the latest Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 3,984 points versus 2,132 for the 245K, a 46.5% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R15 single-core (401 versus 322, 19.7% ahead). However, the 245K wins Cinebench R20 single-core (2,169 versus 1,673, 29.6% ahead) and PassMark single-thread (4,714 versus 4,005, 17.7% ahead).

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The results are mixed across test versions. The 245K wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 35.4% (3,850 versus 2,844) and Cinebench R20 multicore by 29.7% (15,368 versus 11,852). The X7 368H wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 11.2% (28,221 versus 25,066). The 245K also leads PassMark multithread by 30.6% (43,047 versus 32,956).

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

A: The Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both parts have threads equal to cores, meaning neither uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes for the 245K, which supports ECC memory. The X7 368H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The X7 368H has higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s using LPDDR5X, versus 102.4 GB/s on the 245K using DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 245K has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 245K also has more L2 cache per core at 3 MB versus 2.5 MB.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show the following differences between the two processors:

• Series: Core Ultra Series 2 (245K) versus Core Ultra Series 3 (X7 368H)
• Architecture: Arrow Lake (245K) versus Panther Lake (X7 368H)
• Codename: Arrow Lake-S (245K) versus Panther Lake (X7 368H)
• Generation: Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)
• Cores: 14 (245K) versus 16 (X7 368H)
• Threads: 14 (245K) versus 16 (X7 368H)
• Base clock: 4.20 GHz (245K) versus 2.00 GHz (X7 368H)
• Boost clock: 5.20 GHz (245K) versus 5.00 GHz (X7 368H)
• TDP: 125 (245K) versus 25 (X7 368H)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 (245K) versus Intel BGA 2540 (X7 368H)
• Foundry: TSMC (245K) versus Intel (X7 368H)
• Transistors: 17,800 million (245K) versus not recorded (X7 368H)
• Die size: 243 mm² (245K) versus not recorded (X7 368H)
• L2 cache: 3 MB per core (245K) versus 2.5 MB per core (X7 368H)
• L3 cache: 24 MB shared (245K) versus 18 MB shared (X7 368H)
• Memory support: DDR5 (245K) versus LPDDR5X (X7 368H)
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (245K) versus 153.6 GB/s (X7 368H)
• ECC memory: True (245K) versus False (X7 368H)
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 20 lanes (245K) versus Gen 5, 4 lanes (X7 368H)
• Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (245K) versus Arc B390 (X7 368H)
• Market segment: Desktop (245K) versus Mobile (X7 368H)
• Release date: 2024-10-23 (245K) versus 2026-01-04 (X7 368H)
• Multiplier unlocked: True (245K) versus False (X7 368H)
• Part number: SRQCT (245K) versus SA4R7Q9EJ (X7 368H)

Both share the same process node (3 nm), L1 cache (192 KB per core), dual-channel memory bus, and active production status. The 245K has a launch MSRP of $319; no launch MSRP is recorded for the X7 368H.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different design goals. The Core Ultra 5 245K is a desktop processor built for sustained throughput. It wins 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons, with particularly strong showings in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and multithreaded PassMark tests. Its 125 TDP and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes suit a desktop platform where power delivery and expansion are available. The unlocked multiplier and Socket 1851 make it a builder-friendly part for systems that prioritize raw parallel work.

The Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor with a 25 TDP and a locked multiplier, soldered to a BGA 2540 package. It wins on Cinebench R23 multicore and both R23 and R15 single-core tests, despite having fewer benchmark wins overall. Its 16 cores and higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) provide a different performance profile, one that favors newer rendering workloads and memory-sensitive tasks. The lack of ECC support and only 4 PCIe lanes reflect its mobile positioning.

The 91st percentile ranking for the 245K versus the 87th percentile for the X7 368H confirms that the desktop chip sits higher in the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score gap is 54,053 versus 40,518, a difference of roughly 33%. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the 245K trades places with desktop and workstation-class parts like the Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Xeon 6505P, while the X7 368H sits alongside mobile and embedded parts like the Ryzen 9 7940H and Core 7 253PE.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245K wins in most throughput-oriented tasks. Data compression (46.6% ahead), extended instructions (46.5%), random string sorting (44.6%), data encryption (31.9%), and PassMark multithread (30.6%) are its strongest categories. It also leads in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore, floating point math, integer math, find prime numbers, physics, and PassMark single-thread. This makes it the choice for database work, compression pipelines, encryption-heavy applications, and general desktop multitasking where sustained parallel execution is the norm.

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins in Cinebench R23 multicore and in single-core tests on the newer Cinebench versions. The R23 single-core result (3,984 versus 2,132) is the defining strength of this chip: a 46.5% advantage that indicates a significantly more efficient single-core architecture in that benchmark generation. The R23 multicore win (28,221 versus 25,066) suggests that for certain modern rendering workloads, the 16-core mobile chip can outperform the 14-core desktop chip despite the lower clocks and TDP. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth also gives it an edge in memory-bound scenarios, even though the overall benchmark averages favor the desktop part.

For a static desktop system where power draw is not a constraint, the 245K delivers more consistent wins across the benchmark suite. For a mobile platform or a workload that specifically targets Cinebench R23-style rendering and single-core responsiveness, the X7 368H justifies its position with the two largest single-benchmark victories in the comparison. The choice comes down to whether the workload matches the desktop chip's broad throughput advantage or the mobile chip's targeted single-core and R23 strength.