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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins every single recorded head-to-head test, 17 wins to 0 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload, which reveals distinct performance characteristics.

The largest victory appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 245KF scores 5173 against the 356H's 2040, a remarkable 153.6% advantage. This is not a small gap; it indicates a fundamental difference in per-thread capability. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test also shows a massive 99.2% lead for the 245KF, scoring 36647 versus 18395. This near-doubling of multi-threaded score is striking, especially since the 356H actually has more cores (16 versus 14).

Other Cinebench results follow a similar pattern, though with smaller margins. In Cinebench R20, the 245KF leads by 26.6% in both multi-core (15391 vs 12153) and single-core (2172 vs 1715). Cinebench R15 shows a 20.9% multi-core advantage (3693 vs 3055) and a 71.9% single-core advantage (521 vs 303). The single-core deltas are consistently larger than the multi-core ones, except in R20 where they match, suggesting the 245KF's clock speed advantage plays a decisive role in lightly threaded tasks.

PassMark results reinforce the trend across a variety of synthetic workloads. The largest PassMark margin is in data compression, where the 245KF scores 460123 versus 336177, a 36.9% lead. Extended instructions show a 35.9% advantage (37912 vs 27898), and random string sorting a 34.7% lead (55206 vs 40990). Floating point math favors the 245KF by 27.6% (131546 vs 103128), while integer math shows a smaller 18.9% gap (98854 vs 83111). Data encryption is 26.7% higher on the 245KF (33381 vs 26345), and find prime numbers shows a 27.2% lead (416 vs 327).

The closest contest is in PassMark physics, where the 245KF scores 2998 against 2895, a slim 3.6% margin. This suggests that the physics workload, which can be sensitive to memory latency and parallel efficiency, does not fully expose the 245KF's advantages. The PassMark multithread test shows a 26.9% lead (43110 vs 33978), and single-thread tests show a 15.8% advantage (4715 vs 4072). Across all benchmarks, the data indicates the 245KF is faster in every category, but the magnitude of the win is workload-dependent, with the smallest gaps in physics and integer math.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments, which explains much of the benchmark disparity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is a desktop part from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-S). It uses the Intel Socket 1851. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is a mobile part from the Core Ultra Series 3, based on the Panther Lake architecture (codename Panther Lake-H), using the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 245KF is fabricated by TSMC, while the 356H is fabricated by Intel. This is a notable split within the same process node generation. The 245KF reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 356H does not have transistor or die size data recorded in the database.

Core configurations differ. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. Despite having fewer cores, the 245KF delivers far higher multi-core scores, indicating that its Arrow Lake cores are substantially more powerful per core than the Panther Lake cores in the 356H.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both parts have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 245KF versus 2.5 MB per core on the 356H. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the 245KF versus 18 MB on the 356H. The larger per-core L2 and shared L3 on the desktop part likely contribute to its superior performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The 245KF has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The lower base clock on the mobile part reflects its power constraints, while the higher boost clock on the desktop part helps explain the enormous single-core margins. The TDP figures reinforce this: the 245KF is rated at 125 W, while the 356H is rated at 25 W. This five-fold difference in power envelope is the likely root cause of the performance gap.

Memory support also differs. The 245KF supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. This is an unusual result: the mobile part has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth than the desktop part, likely due to LPDDR5X support. However, this does not translate into benchmark wins for the 356H.

PCIe lane counts differ as well. The 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, while the 356H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the 356H does not. The 245KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the 356H has a later release date of 2026-01-04. The 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294; the 356H has no recorded MSRP.

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 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. The 356H has two more cores, yet it loses all 17 head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 245KF win by such a large margin in single-core tests?

A: The 245KF has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to the 356H's 4.70 GHz, and a base clock of 4.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 245KF scores 5173 versus 2040, a 153.6% lead. The higher clock speeds and desktop power envelope are the primary factors.

Q: Does the mobile processor have any advantages in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 245KF supports only DDR5 and has a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Despite this, the 245KF wins all memory-related benchmarks in the recorded data.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 245KF is rated at 125 W, while the 356H is rated at 25 W. This indicates a desktop versus mobile power envelope, and it explains the substantial performance differences across all workloads.

Q: Are both processors on the same process node?

A: Both are on a 3 nm process node. However, the 245KF is manufactured by TSMC, while the 356H is manufactured by Intel. The 245KF has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 356H has no transistor or die size data.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The 356H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 245KF has no integrated graphics (N/A). This is a functional difference, though it does not appear in the benchmark head-to-head results.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the database:

• Name: Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
• Series: Core Ultra Series 2 vs Core Ultra Series 3
• Cores: 14 vs 16
• Threads: 14 vs 16
• Base Clock: 4.20 GHz vs 1.90 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.20 GHz vs 4.70 GHz
• TDP: 125 W vs 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 vs Intel BGA 2540
• Architecture: Arrow Lake vs Panther Lake
• Codename: Arrow Lake-S vs Panther Lake
• Generation: Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) vs Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H)
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 17,800 million vs null (no data)
• Die Size: 243 mm² vs null (no data)
• L2 Cache: 3 MB (per core) vs 2.5 MB (per core)
• L3 Cache: 24 MB (shared) vs 18 MB (shared)
• Memory Support: DDR5 vs DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 20 Lanes vs Gen 5, 12 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: N/A vs Intel Xe3 Graphics
• Market Segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Release Date: 2024-10-23 vs 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $294 vs null (no data)
• Multiplier Unlocked: true vs false
• Part Number: SRQCY vs SA4RGQ9EU
• Percentile Vs All CPUs: 91 vs 87
• Average Benchmark Score: 55093 vs 41215

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins in every single recorded benchmark. There is no test in the head-to-head data where the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H comes out ahead. The 245KF's largest margins are in Cinebench R23 single-core (153.6%) and multi-core (99.2%), followed by Cinebench R15 single-core (71.9%). Its smallest margins are in PassMark physics (3.6%) and PassMark integer math (18.9%).

The 356H's only potential advantages are in specification-level features, not performance. It has more cores (16 vs 14), a higher memory bandwidth rating (115.2 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s), broader memory support (DDR5 and LPDDR5X vs DDR5 only), integrated graphics, and a much lower TDP (25 W vs 125 W). These are meaningful for system design, but they do not translate into any benchmark wins. The 356H is also newer by release date (2026-01-04 vs 2024-10-23).

For workloads that stress single-thread performance, such as Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, the 245KF is overwhelmingly superior. For heavily multi-threaded tasks, the 245KF also dominates, despite having two fewer cores. The only area where the 356H comes close is in the PassMark physics test, where the 3.6% gap suggests the workload does not scale with the 245KF's clock speed advantage. Even there, the 245KF wins.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the faster processor in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 55093 places it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the 356H's average of 41215 places it at the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 245KF include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D (0.6% higher average score) and the Intel Core i9-14900HX (1.6% lower). The 356H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (0.4% lower). This shows that the 245KF competes in a higher performance tier.

The 245KF is a desktop processor with an unlocked multiplier, a 125 W TDP, and no integrated graphics. It is designed for systems where power draw is less of a concern. The 356H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and a locked multiplier. It is designed for laptops and other power-constrained environments.

For anyone selecting between these two based purely on benchmark performance, the 245KF is the clear choice. It delivers superior results in rendering, compression, encryption, math operations, and single-threaded tasks. The 356H offers more cores, a newer release date, integrated graphics, and lower power consumption, but it cannot match the 245KF's raw speed. The recorded data shows no scenario where the 356H has a performance advantage. The 245KF wins all 17 head-to-head tests, and the gap is often substantial, sometimes exceeding 150%. The 356H may be appropriate for a mobile build where power efficiency and integrated graphics are priorities, but the benchmark data does not support a performance-based argument for choosing it over the 245KF.