Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The Ultra 7 255HX wins 16 of those comparisons, while the Ultra X7 358H takes a single victory. The margin of victory varies widely depending on the workload, from a narrow 4% in Cinebench R23 single-core to a dominant 74% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The largest single advantage for the Ultra 7 255HX appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 32612 against 18747 for the Ultra X7 358H. That 74% delta represents the biggest gap in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with the Ultra 7 255HX scoring 4916 versus 3027, a 62.4% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core records a 43.1% lead, with scores of 17187 and 12011 respectively.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-threaded dominance. Data compression shows a 54.9% lead (515143 versus 332508), floating point math a 54.7% lead (160624 versus 103842), and random string sorting a 55.1% lead (62591 versus 40357). Integer math delivers a 52.9% advantage (127126 versus 83147), while extended instructions come in at 51.2% (41247 versus 27274). Data encryption trails slightly at 51.7% (39499 versus 26046), and multithread performance shows a 42.7% gap (48234 versus 33802).

Single-thread results are closer but still favor the Ultra 7 255HX. PassMark single-thread scores 4562 against 4124, a 10.6% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 327 versus 301.5, an 8.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows to just 4% (2163 versus 2080). Interestingly, Cinebench R20 single-core records a 43.1% delta (2426 versus 1695), which is inconsistent with the other single-thread tests and likely reflects a measurement anomaly in the recorded data.

The only benchmark where the Ultra X7 358H wins is PassMark physics, scoring 3021 against 2926, a 3.1% advantage. This is the sole data point where the newer part takes the lead, and it stands in contrast to the otherwise uniform pattern of Ultra 7 255HX superiority. Prime number finding shows a smaller 18.7% gap (400 versus 337), suggesting the Ultra X7 358H remains competitive in specific integer workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake codename, and is also built on a 3 nm process, but at Intel's own foundry. Both parts target the mobile market segment and are currently listed as active in production.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Ultra 7 255HX provides 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra X7 358H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 255HX and 1.90 GHz for the Ultra X7 358H. Boost clocks reach 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 7 255HX is multiplier unlocked, while the Ultra X7 358H is locked. Thermal design power also differs, with the Ultra 7 255HX rated at 55 and the Ultra X7 358H at 25.

Cache hierarchies show both similarities and divergences. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and L2 is identical at 3 MB per core. L3 cache differs: the Ultra 7 255HX carries 30 MB shared, while the Ultra X7 358H carries 18 MB shared. Neither part includes 3D V-Cache.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Ultra 7 255HX uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a higher recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity shows a large divergence: the Ultra 7 255HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ by generation. The Ultra 7 255HX integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra X7 358H integrates the Arc B390. Sockets differ as well: the Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540. Transistor count and die size are recorded for the Ultra 7 255HX at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm², but these fields are not available for the Ultra X7 358H. Release dates place the Ultra 7 255HX in January 2025 and the Ultra X7 358H in January 2026. The part numbers are SRVFG for the Ultra 7 255HX and SA4RAQ9ET for the Ultra X7 358H.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data creates a clear division of labor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the stronger processor for almost every measured workload category. Rendering workloads, represented by Cinebench tests, lean heavily toward the Ultra 7 255HX, especially in multi-core scenarios where the 74% R23 lead and 62.4% R15 lead demonstrate a substantial advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks.

Compression and encryption workloads also favor the Ultra 7 255HX decisively. Data compression scores 515143 versus 332508, and data encryption scores 39499 versus 26046. These deltas of 54.9% and 51.7% indicate that archive management, file transfer, and encrypted storage operations will complete notably faster on the Ultra 7 255HX. Similarly, mathematical workloads such as floating point math (54.7% lead), integer math (52.9% lead), and extended instructions (51.2% lead) all favor the older part by wide margins.

Single-threaded performance shows the Ultra 7 255HX ahead, but the advantage shrinks considerably. The PassMark single-thread score of 4562 versus 4124 (10.6%) and the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2163 versus 2080 (4%) indicate that the Ultra X7 358H is nearly competitive in lightly threaded tasks. The Cinebench R15 single-core result (327 versus 301.5, 8.5%) sits between those two figures. The Ultra X7 358H closes the gap in single-thread workloads much more effectively than in multi-thread workloads.

The one clear victory for the Ultra X7 358H appears in PassMark physics, where it scores 3021 against 2926, a 3.1% edge. This suggests that certain physics simulation workloads may run slightly better on the newer part, though the margin is modest. Prime number finding also narrows the gap to 18.7% (400 versus 337), which is smaller than most other PassMark deltas but still favors the Ultra 7 255HX. Overall, the Ultra X7 358H demonstrates its competitive position only in specific single-thread or physics-oriented scenarios, while the Ultra 7 255HX dominates across the broader benchmark suite.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX leads in every multi-core benchmark. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32612 versus 18747 (74% ahead), Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 17187 versus 12011 (43.1% ahead), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4916 versus 3027 (62.4% ahead).

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX wins all recorded single-thread tests, but by narrower margins. PassMark single-thread shows 4562 versus 4124 (10.6%), Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2163 versus 2080 (4%), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 327 versus 301.5 (8.5%).

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ultra X7 358H wins?

A: Yes. PassMark physics is the only recorded win for the Ultra X7 358H, scoring 3021 against 2926, a 3.1% advantage.

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

A: The Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX records an average benchmark score of 62738 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra X7 358H records an average benchmark score of 40967 and sits in the 87th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX outperforms the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H in 16 of 17 benchmark comparisons, often by very large margins. The 74% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 62.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core indicate that the Ultra 7 255HX is the stronger choice for heavily threaded rendering and computation. PassMark workloads in compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, and multithread all show leads between 42.7% and 55.1%.

The Ultra X7 358H does not match the Ultra 7 255HX in most measured areas, but the data identifies specific strengths. Its PassMark physics win (3.1% ahead) is the sole benchmark victory, and its single-thread scores come within 4% to 10.6% of the Ultra 7 255HX. The higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, the newer Panther Lake codename, the Intel foundry process, and the lower thermal design power of 25 may make it suitable for power-constrained mobile designs. The Arc B390 integrated graphics also represent a newer graphics generation than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU in the Ultra 7 255HX.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance across rendering, compression, encryption, and general multithreaded workloads, the Ultra 7 255HX is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. For scenarios where the single PassMark physics advantage and lower power envelope of the Ultra X7 358H matter more, the newer part has a defined but narrow role. The average benchmark score difference of 62738 versus 40967 and the percentile ranking of 93 versus 87 summarize the overall gap: the Ultra 7 255HX is the higher-performing processor in the database records.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

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

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

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 | 25 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX | Panther Lake |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Arc B390 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | SRVFG | SA4RAQ9ET |