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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H recording zero wins. The margins range from modest to substantial, and the pattern is consistent across both Cinebench and Passmark workloads.

The largest single advantage appears in Passmark extended instructions, where the 245KF scores 37,912 against 25,669 for the 368H, a delta of 47.7%. Data compression is nearly as one-sided at 47% (460,123 versus 312,927), and random string sorting shows a 44.9% gap (55,206 versus 38,093). These are not narrow wins; they represent a full performance class of separation in tasks that stress instruction throughput and memory access patterns.

Cinebench results are uniform across all six tests. The multicore R15, R20, and R23 scores all show a 29.9% delta in favor of the 245KF (3,693 vs 2,844; 15,391 vs 11,852; 36,647 vs 28,221). Single-core variants are nearly identical in margin: R15 single-core at 29.9% (521 vs 401), R20 single-core at 29.8% (2,172 vs 1,673), and R23 single-core at 29.8% (5,173 vs 3,984). This consistency suggests the advantage is architectural rather than workload-specific.

Passmark multithread shows a 30.8% gap (43,110 vs 32,956), while single-thread is narrower at 17.7% (4,715 vs 4,005). Floating-point math favors the 245KF by 24.5% (131,546 vs 105,681), and integer math by a smaller 12.2% (98,854 vs 88,083). The encryption test shows a 32.3% delta (33,381 vs 25,228), while prime number finding is close to the Cinebench pattern at 29.6% (416 vs 321). The smallest margin in the entire set is Passmark physics at 4.9% (2,998 vs 2,857), indicating that physics simulation is the one area where the 368H gets relatively close, though it still loses.

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the 245KF averages 55,093 across all tests, placing it at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 368H averages 40,518, sitting at the 87th percentile. The 245KF's nearest rival in the database is the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54,762, a 0.6% difference, and the Intel Core 7 253PQE at 55,919, where the 245KF trails by 1.5%. The 368H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40,557 (0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40,585 (0.2% ahead), meaning the 368H is essentially tied with those parts rather than clearly above them.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target entirely different market segments. The 245KF is a desktop part from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) and released in October 2024. The 368H is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake-H codename) with a release date of January 2026.

Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 245KF is fabbed by TSMC, while the 368H is produced by Intel's own fabs. The 245KF has a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors; the 368H has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts differ: the 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses Hyper-Threading, so thread count equals core count for both. Despite having fewer cores, the 245KF delivers substantially higher performance, which points to clock speed and cache configuration as the deciding factors.

The 245KF runs at a 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.20 GHz boost clock. The 368H is significantly lower at 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. That 2.20 GHz base-clock advantage for the 245KF is the most obvious explanation for its single-core dominance, and the 0.20 GHz boost advantage adds to it.

Cache layouts differ as well. Both have 192 KB L1 per core, but the L2 is 3 MB per core on the 245KF versus 2.5 MB per core on the 368H. The shared L3 is 24 MB on the 245KF versus 18 MB on the 368H. More cache per core and a larger shared pool favor the desktop part in latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support diverges sharply. The 245KF uses DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 368H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. This is one area where the mobile part has a measurable specification advantage, yet the benchmark data shows the 245KF still wins memory-heavy tests like data compression and random string sorting by wide margins.

PCIe connectivity is another clear split. The 245KF offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 368H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part provides far more expansion headroom for GPUs and storage. The 368H includes integrated graphics (Arc B390), while the 245KF has no integrated graphics at all.

The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable; the 368H is locked. Power targets differ enormously: the 245KF carries a 125 W TDP, while the 368H is rated at 25 W. That fivefold difference in thermal envelope explains much of the performance gap, as the 245KF has far more headroom to sustain high clocks under load.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H in every single recorded test, with deltas ranging from 4.9% to 47.7%. The 245KF also holds a higher average score (55,093 vs 40,518) and a higher percentile rank (91st vs 87th). If raw performance is the only criterion, the 245KF is the clear choice.

The 368H is not without rationale, however. It is a mobile part with a 25 W TDP, suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the 245KF's 125 W desktop package would be impractical. The 368H also features integrated Arc B390 graphics, which the 245KF lacks entirely, meaning the desktop part requires a discrete GPU for any display output. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 368H (153.6 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s), which could benefit certain memory-bound mobile workloads.

The data indicates that the 368H's closest competitors in the database are other mobile or low-power parts (Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, Intel Xeon 6507P), all within 0.2% of its average score. The 245KF, by contrast, competes with high-end desktop silicon like the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Core i9-14900HX. These are different leagues, and the benchmarks reflect that.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum compute throughput, the 245KF delivers across all workloads. For a mobile user who needs an integrated GPU and low power consumption, the 368H is the only one of the two that fits that use case, despite its lower scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins all 17 head-to-head tests recorded in the database. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records zero wins.

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

A: The largest delta is 47.7% in Passmark extended instructions, where the 245KF scores 37,912 versus 25,669 for the 368H. Data compression is close behind at 47% (460,123 vs 312,927).

Q: Does the 368H have any specification advantage?

A: Yes. The 368H has higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s), more cores (16 vs 14), and includes integrated Arc B390 graphics. The 245KF has no integrated graphics.

Q: Why does the 245KF perform better despite fewer cores?

A: The 245KF has a much higher base clock (4.20 GHz vs 2.00 GHz) and a slightly higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 5.00 GHz). It also has more L2 cache per core (3 MB vs 2.5 MB) and a larger shared L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB).

Q: Are these processors in the same market segment?

A: No. The 245KF is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP and an unlocked multiplier. The 368H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP and a locked multiplier.

Q: How close is the 368H to its nearest rivals?

A: The 368H's average score of 40,518 is within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40,557), Intel Core 5 223PE (40,585), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40,431), and Intel Xeon 6507P (40,426).

Where Each One Wins

The 245KF wins every workload category recorded in the database, so the "where each one wins" split is not about benchmark victories. Instead, the relevant split is architectural and situational.

The 245KF wins in all compute-heavy scenarios: multi-core rendering (Cinebench R23 multicore 36,647 vs 28,221), encryption (33,381 vs 25,228), extended instruction throughput (37,912 vs 25,669), and integer math (98,854 vs 88,083). It also wins single-core tasks like Cinebench R23 single-core (5,173 vs 3,984) and Passmark single-thread (4,715 vs 4,005). Its higher base clock, larger cache pools, and 125 W power budget make it the dominant part for sustained desktop workloads.

The 368H wins in the context of mobile deployment. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for battery-powered laptops, and its integrated Arc B390 GPU removes the need for a discrete graphics card in systems where the 245KF would require one. Its higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s) is an advantage for bandwidth-sensitive mobile applications, though the recorded benchmarks do not show it converting that into wins. The 368H also uses Intel's own fabs rather than TSMC, which may matter for supply-chain considerations, and it is a newer architecture (Panther Lake, released January 2026) versus Arrow Lake (October 2024).

The physics test is the closest the 368H gets to parity, with a 4.9% delta (2,998 vs 2,857). That result suggests that in physics simulation workloads, the 368H's architecture is relatively efficient, but it still loses.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $294 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SRQCY | SA4R7Q9EJ |

The specification table shows a clear strategic divergence. The 245KF is a high-power desktop part with massive PCIe lane allocation and an unlocked multiplier, built for maximum throughput. The 368H is a low-power mobile part with integrated graphics and a locked multiplier, built for efficiency and portability. The 245KF's 125 W TDP versus the 368H's 25 W TDP is the single largest specification gap, and it directly explains the benchmark differences. The 368H's higher memory bandwidth and greater core count do not offset the clock speed and cache deficits in the recorded tests.