Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 2. The 265 also holds a higher overall percentile rank, sitting in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs compared to the 87th percentile for the 356H.

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 records an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215. That places the 265 roughly 57% higher in aggregate performance, though individual test results vary widely.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 7 356H faster in any significant way?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R20, the 356H scores 12153 in multi-core and 1715 in single-core, beating the 265 by 48.4% and 48.5% respectively. These are the only two head-to-head wins for the 356H.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, as threads equal cores in both cases.

Q: Which CPU offers higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, exceeding the 102.4 GB/s of the Core Ultra 7 265. The 356H also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, while the 265 supports only DDR5.

Q: What are the launch dates for these processors?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $394. The Core Ultra 7 356H launched on 2026-01-04, and no launch MSRP is recorded for it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and use different underlying architectures. The Core Ultra 7 265 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the 265, while Intel produces the 356H.

The 265 has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 356H does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database. Both chips use the same L1 cache size of 192 KB per core, but L2 and L3 differ. The 265 carries 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3. The 356H uses 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3.

Core counts also separate the pair. The 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock speeds differ as well: the 265 runs at 2.40 GHz base and boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the 356H runs at 1.90 GHz base and boosts to 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power is substantially different, with the 265 rated at 65 watts and the 356H at 25 watts. This reflects the market positioning: the 265 is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1851, while the 356H is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2540.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, while the 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Memory support shows the 356H as the more flexible mobile option, supporting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the 265 supports only DDR5. Both are dual-channel, but the 356H has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well: the 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a lopsided contest, with the Core Ultra 7 265 winning 15 tests and the 356H winning 2. The largest margin for the 265 comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5960 against 2040, a 192.2% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core also goes heavily to the 265, with a score of 42216 versus 18395, a 129.5% lead. In Cinebench R15, the 265 wins multi-core with 4255 against 3055 (39.3% ahead) and single-core with 600 against 303 (98% ahead).

PassMark tests reinforce the 265's dominance. Data compression shows 522983 versus 336177, a 55.6% win. Data encryption records 40456 versus 26345, a 53.6% margin. Extended instructions show 41478 versus 27898, a 48.7% difference. Floating point math delivers 172776 against 103128, a 67.5% advantage. Integer math scores 134773 versus 83111, a 62.2% edge. Multithread performance hits 49682 against 33978, a 46.2% lead. Random string sorting produces 63833 versus 40990, a 55.7% gap. Single-thread PassMark results show 4689 versus 4072, a 15.2% advantage. Find prime numbers scores 418 versus 327, a 27.8% win. The physics test is the closest contest, with 2923 versus 2895, a 1% margin for the 265.

The 356H's two wins come in Cinebench R20. Multi-core shows 12153 against 6268, a 48.4% advantage. Single-core shows 1715 against 884, a 48.5% edge. These results are striking because the 356H loses every other benchmark, often by large margins. The R20 scores suggest the 356H performs well in that specific workload, but the pattern is inconsistent with its other results, particularly its much lower Cinebench R23 scores.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The 265 averages 64640, placing it near the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, -0.3%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, 0.7%), and the AMD EPYC 9124 (65104, -0.7%). The 356H averages 41215, placing it near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, 0%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41263, -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376, -0.4%), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (40967, 0.6%). These nearest-rival comparisons show that the 265 competes with server-class EPYC parts, while the 356H trades blows with mobile and previous-generation desktop chips.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products. The Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop processor with 20 cores, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB of L3 cache, and a 65-watt TDP. It dominates the head-to-head record with 15 wins, including massive margins in Cinebench R23 and most PassMark tests. Its average benchmark score of 64640 places it in the 93rd percentile, and its nearest rivals include EPYC server processors.

The Core Ultra 7 356H is a mobile processor with 16 cores, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, 18 MB of L3 cache, and a 25-watt TDP. It wins only Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, where it beats the 265 by roughly 48%. Its average score of 41215 places it in the 87th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, a previous-generation desktop chip.

For users building a desktop system, the 265 is the clear choice based on benchmark data. It offers higher core count, higher clocks, more L3 cache, and superior results across nearly every test. For users needing a mobile processor, the 356H is the only one of the two that fits a laptop socket, and its lower TDP of 25 watts makes it suitable for portable systems. The 265's 65-watt TDP and Socket 1851 requirement preclude mobile use.

The single-thread comparison deserves attention. The 265 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 192.2% and in Cinebench R15 single-core by 98%, but its PassMark single-thread lead is only 15.2%. The 356H's Cinebench R20 single-core win by 48.5% is a notable outlier. These inconsistencies suggest the two chips handle different instruction mixes with varying efficiency, but the aggregate data still favors the 265 strongly.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |

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

| 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 | 5.30 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $394 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQCX | SA4RGQ9EU |

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265 wins in the overwhelming majority of workloads. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4255 versus 3055), Cinebench R23 multi-core (42216 versus 18395), and every PassMark test. The largest wins come in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it more than doubles the 356H's score, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it nearly doubles it. PassMark data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and prime number finding all go to the 265 by margins ranging from 15.2% to 67.5%. Even the closest test, PassMark physics, goes to the 265 with a 1% edge.

The Core Ultra 7 356H wins only in Cinebench R20. It scores 12153 in multi-core versus 6268, and 1715 in single-core versus 884. These are substantial wins of 48.4% and 48.5% respectively, but they stand alone in the data. The 356H also offers higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s and supports LPDDR5X memory, which the 265 does not. Its lower 25-watt TDP and mobile socket make it the only viable option for laptop builds.

For desktop users, the 265 delivers superior performance in almost every measured category. For mobile users, the 356H provides competitive results in Cinebench R20 and a more power-efficient package, while still trailing in PassMark tests. The specification sheet confirms the split: the 265 targets desktops with more cores, more cache, and higher clocks; the 356H targets laptops with lower power draw, wider memory support, and a different integrated GPU.