Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF records an average benchmark score of 55093, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 47468. The database places the 245KF in the 91st percentile of all CPUs and the 378H in the 89th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 36647 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 12.6% ahead of the Core Ultra X9 378H's 32553. This margin is consistent across all Cinebench versions tested.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core Ultra X9 378H wins?

A: Yes, the 378H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3404, which is 11.9% higher than the 245KF's 2998. This is the only test win out of 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the process node difference between these processors?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The 245KF uses TSMC as its foundry, while the 378H uses Intel as its foundry.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The 245KF supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 378H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. It is a desktop processor built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation. It is a mobile processor built on a 3 nm process by Intel, but the database records no transistor count or die size for this chip.

The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Neither processor has hyperthreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Cache configurations differ. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the 245KF has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The 378H has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The total L3 values are not recorded for either.

The 245KF uses Intel Socket 1851 and has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The 378H uses Intel BGA 2540 and has PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, while the 378H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier; the 378H does not.

The 245KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the 378H has a release date of 2026-04-03. The 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294; the 378H has no launch MSRP recorded. Both are active in production. Neither supports ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245KF wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The most significant margin appears in PassMark random string sorting, where the 245KF scores 55206 versus 44648 for the 378H, a 23.6% advantage. PassMark extended instructions show a 21.1% gap, with the 245KF scoring 37912 against 31315.

PassMark data compression is another large win for the 245KF, scoring 460123 versus 386591, a 19% difference. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 16.5% lead, with scores of 416 and 357. PassMark floating point math favors the 245KF by 14.9%, with 131546 against 114500.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 12.6% margins across R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, and R23 multicore and singlecore. R15 multicore scores are 3693 for the 245KF and 3281 for the 378H. R15 singlecore shows a 12.8% gap, 521 versus 462. R20 multicore is 15391 against 13672, and R20 singlecore is 2172 against 1929. R23 multicore is 36647 versus 32553, and R23 singlecore is 5173 versus 4595.

PassMark data encryption shows an 11.9% advantage for the 245KF, with 33381 against 29840. PassMark multithread also shows a 12.6% gap, 43110 versus 38298. PassMark integer math is closer, with the 245KF ahead by 6.8%, scoring 98854 against 92603. PassMark single thread shows a 5.9% lead, 4715 versus 4453, and the duplicate singlethread entry matches this result.

The single win for the 378H comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 3404 against 2998, an 11.9% margin. This is the only test where the mobile chip outperforms the desktop chip.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF in nearly every measured workload. Its average score of 55093 places it 16.1% above the 378H's 47468. The 245KF also ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution, sitting at the 91st percentile versus the 89th percentile for the 378H.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize these results. The 245KF sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, 1.5% below the Intel Core 7 253PQE, and 1.6% below the Intel Core i9-14900HX. The 378H sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-13700KF, and 0.6% above the Intel Core i9-12900F. These figures show the 245KF competing in higher performance territory despite having fewer cores.

The 378H does deliver a notable win in PassMark physics, suggesting different optimization characteristics. However, its lower clock speeds and reduced cache likely explain the broad performance deficit. The 245KF's 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.20 GHz boost clock substantially exceed the 378H's 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost.

For desktop users, the data indicates the 245KF is the stronger processor across rendering, encryption, compression, and general computation. For mobile users, the 378H offers integrated graphics and a much lower TDP of 25 watts versus 125 watts, but at a measurable performance cost.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 4.20 GHz for the 245KF versus 2.00 GHz for the 378H. Boost clocks are closer, with 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

TDP differs by a factor of five: 125 watts for the 245KF versus 25 watts for the 378H. Sockets differ, with the 245KF using Intel Socket 1851 and the 378H using Intel BGA 2540. The codenames differ: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. The generation labels differ: Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H).

L2 cache per core is 3 MB for the 245KF and 2.5 MB for the 378H. L3 cache is 24 MB shared for the 245KF and 18 MB shared for the 378H. Memory support differs: DDR5 for the 245KF and LPDDR5X for the 378H. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the 245KF and 153.6 GB/s for the 378H.

PCIe lane counts differ, with 20 lanes for the 245KF and 4 lanes for the 378H. Integrated graphics differ: none for the 245KF and Arc B390 for the 378H. The multiplier is unlocked on the 245KF but locked on the 378H. Release dates differ, with the 245KF launching earlier. The 245KF has a recorded part number of SRQCY, while the 378H's part number is unknown. The foundry differs: TSMC for the 245KF and Intel for the 378H. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the 245KF.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245KF wins in all rendering workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 results, both single-core and multi-core, show consistent 12.6% to 12.8% advantages. This makes it the clear choice for CPU rendering tasks.

The 245KF also wins in data processing tasks. PassMark data compression shows a 19% lead, data encryption shows an 11.9% lead, and random string sorting shows a 23.6% lead. Extended instruction workloads favor the 245KF by 21.1%. These results indicate stronger performance in compression, encryption, and sorting workloads.

The 245KF wins in general math and computation. Floating point math shows a 14.9% lead, integer math shows a 6.8% lead, and prime number finding shows a 16.5% lead. Multithread performance favors the 245KF by 12.6%, and single-thread performance favors it by 5.9%.

The Core Ultra X9 378H wins only in PassMark physics, scoring 11.9% higher. This single result suggests a specific advantage in physics simulation workloads, though the database does not indicate why. The 378H also offers integrated graphics and a substantially lower TDP, which the data shows as 25 watts against 125 watts. The higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s favors the 378H in memory-intensive scenarios.

The 378H has more cores and a newer release date, but the 245KF delivers higher benchmark scores across the majority of recorded tests. The data supports the 245KF for desktop workloads requiring maximum compute performance, while the 378H suits mobile scenarios where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more.