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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, one aimed at desktop performance and the other at mobile efficiency. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop part dominating most computational tests. However, the mobile chip, built on a newer architecture, demonstrates specific strengths that are relevant for its target segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The most striking difference appears in the Cinebench R23 tests. In the multicore test, the 245KF scores 36,647 points against the 358H's 18,747 points, a delta of 95.5%. The single-core R23 result is even more lopsided, with the 245KF scoring 5,173 versus 2,080 for the 358H, a 148.7% advantage. This indicates a massive difference in raw single-thread capability.

The Cinebench R20 results follow a similar pattern. The 245KF leads in multicore with 15,391 points compared to 12,011 points for the 358H, a 28.1% margin. The single-core R20 test shows the same 28.1% delta, with scores of 2,172 and 1,695 respectively. The Cinebench R15 results are also one-sided. The 245KF achieves 3,693 points in multicore versus 3,027 points for the 358H, a 22% lead. In single-core R15, the 245KF's 521 points dwarf the 358H's 301.5 points, a 72.8% difference.

PassMark tests confirm the trend, though the margins vary by workload. The largest PassMark difference is in data compression, where the 245KF scores 460,123 against 332,508 for the 358H, a 38.4% lead. Extended instructions also show a significant gap, with the 245KF at 37,912 and the 358H at 27,274, a 39% difference. Random string sorting sees the 245KF ahead by 36.8%, with scores of 55,206 and 40,357. Data encryption shows a 28.2% advantage for the 245KF, scoring 33,381 versus 26,046.

Other PassMark tests show smaller but still substantial leads for the 245KF. Floating point math results in a 26.7% delta, with scores of 131,546 and 103,842. The multithread test shows a 27.5% advantage for the 245KF, scoring 43,110 against 33,802. Integer math sees the 245KF ahead by 18.9%, scoring 98,854 versus 83,147. Find prime numbers results in a 23.4% lead, with scores of 416 and 337. Single-thread performance shows a 14.3% delta, with the 245KF scoring 4,715 and the 358H scoring 4,124.

The single exception to this pattern is the PassMark physics test. Here, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins with a score of 3,021 against the 245KF's 2,998, a marginal 0.8% advantage. This is the only head-to-head that the mobile processor wins, indicating a specific optimization in that workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different platforms. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is a desktop part using the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and has a production status of Active. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor using the Panther Lake architecture, designated Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket and is also Active in production.

Both processors are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 245KF is manufactured by TSMC, while the 358H is manufactured by Intel. The 245KF has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while these figures are not recorded for the 358H. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having more cores, the 358H's performance is lower, indicating a significant difference in core design or clock speeds.

The cache structure is similar in L1 and L2, with both processors using 192 KB per core for L1 and 3 MB per core for L2. However, the L3 cache differs substantially. The 245KF has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 358H has 18 MB. This larger cache on the desktop part may contribute to its performance advantage in certain workloads. The 245KF has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 358H has a much lower base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. This clock speed difference is a primary factor in the performance gap.

Memory support also differentiates the two. The 245KF supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 358H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory. PCIe support differs as well, with the 245KF offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the 358H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, while the 358H includes an Arc B390 integrated GPU. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, while the 358H does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the clear winner in almost every computational category. Its strengths lie in high-clock, high-power desktop workloads. The data shows it leads by significant margins in all Cinebench tests, indicating superior performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks. The PassMark results reinforce this, with the 245KF leading in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. This makes it the appropriate choice for applications that demand maximum processing power, such as content creation, scientific computing, and heavy multitasking.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins only in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 3,021 versus 2,998 for the 245KF. This narrow margin suggests a specific optimization in physics calculations, which could be relevant for certain simulation or gaming workloads. However, this single win does not offset the 245KF's dominance elsewhere. The 358H's other advantages are architectural rather than benchmark-based. It has a lower TDP of 25 watts compared to 125 watts for the 245KF, making it more suitable for power-constrained mobile environments. It also includes an integrated GPU, which the 245KF lacks, allowing for a complete system without a discrete graphics card. The 358H's support for LPDDR5X memory with higher bandwidth is another point in its favor for mobile use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has an average benchmark score of 55,093, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has an average score of 40,967. This places the 245KF in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the 358H sits in the 87th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF leads by 148.7%, scoring 5,173 against the 358H's 2,080. The second largest is the R23 multicore test, where the 245KF leads by 95.5%.

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

A: Yes, the 358H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3,021, which is 0.8% higher than the 245KF's score of 2,998. This is the only head-to-head test where the 358H comes out ahead.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 245KF achieves higher multicore scores in all recorded Cinebench tests.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H includes an integrated GPU, specifically the Arc B390. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock is 4.20 GHz for the 245KF and 1.90 GHz for the 358H. The boost clock is 5.20 GHz for the 245KF and 4.80 GHz for the 358H. The TDP is 125 watts for the 245KF and 25 watts for the 358H.

The socket types are different: the 245KF uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. The architecture is Arrow Lake for the 245KF, while the 358H uses a Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake-H. The 245KF is manufactured by TSMC, while the 358H is manufactured by Intel. The 245KF has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while these are not recorded for the 358H.

The L3 cache differs, with the 245KF offering 24 MB shared and the 358H offering 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 for the 245KF and LPDDR5X for the 358H. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the 245KF and 153.6 GB/s for the 358H. PCIe lanes are 20 for the 245KF and 4 for the 358H, both Gen 5. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, while the 358H has an Arc B390. The multiplier is unlocked on the 245KF but locked on the 358H. The 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294, while the 358H has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the superior processor for raw performance. It leads in 16 of 17 recorded tests, often by substantial margins. The 95.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 148.7% lead in R23 single-core are decisive indicators of its processing power. Its higher clock speeds, larger L3 cache, and desktop-oriented design contribute to these results. The 245KF also ranks higher in the overall percentile, sitting at 91% versus 87% for the 358H. Users who prioritize maximum computational throughput in a desktop environment should look at the 245KF.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, however, is designed for a different use case. Its 25-watt TDP, compared to 125 watts for the 245KF, makes it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency is critical. The inclusion of an integrated GPU and support for LPDDR5X memory with higher bandwidth are features tailored to laptops and compact devices. Its single benchmark win in physics, while narrow, suggests some specialized capability. The 358H's lower average score of 40,967 places it in the 87th percentile, which is still a respectable position. For mobile workloads where the integrated graphics and lower power draw are more important than peak CPU performance, the 358H is the appropriate choice. The data shows a clear split: the 245KF for performance-critical desktop tasks, the 358H for efficient mobile computing.