Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two processors cleanly by segment and workload. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins the remaining 2. The desktop part, Core Ultra 7 265, holds a decisive overall lead with an average benchmark score of 64640 versus 40518 for the mobile part. This places the Core Ultra 7 265 at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile.

The Core Ultra 7 265 is the choice for sustained multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, and math-heavy workloads. Its 20 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 65 W TDP and a 5.30 GHz boost clock, deliver scores that are consistently 30% to 67% higher than the mobile chip across most tests. The Core Ultra X7 368H, with 16 cores and 16 threads, a 25 W TDP, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, is the only part that wins in Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core tests, where it posts scores of 11852 and 1673 respectively. Those two wins indicate a specific efficiency advantage in that particular benchmark version, but they do not offset the broader performance gap.

For users who need a desktop processor with high throughput in rendering, archival, and scientific workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265 is the clear pick. For those who need a mobile processor with lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the only one of the two that fits that requirement. The data does not suggest either chip is a general-purpose substitute for the other; they serve different market segments with different performance profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265 dominates in every PassMark subtest except for none. Its largest advantages appear in random string sorting, where it scores 63833 against 38093, a 67.6% lead, and data compression, where it scores 522983 against 312927, a 67.1% lead. Data encryption shows a 60.4% advantage with 40456 versus 25228. Extended instructions favor the desktop part by 61.6% with 41478 versus 25669. Floating point math shows a 63.5% lead at 172776 versus 105681. Integer math is 53% ahead at 134773 versus 88083. The multithread score is 50.8% higher at 49682 versus 32956. Even the single-thread score, which might be expected to be closer, shows a 17.1% advantage at 4689 versus 4005. The smallest win for the Core Ultra 7 265 is in PassMark physics, where it leads by only 2.3% with 2923 versus 2857, indicating that the two chips are nearly identical in that specific physics simulation workload.

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins in Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core. In the multi-core test, it scores 11852 while the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 6268, a 47.1% advantage for the mobile chip. In the single-core test, it scores 1673 against 884, a 47.2% advantage. These two wins are notable because they contradict the general trend of the desktop part winning by large margins. The R20 results suggest that the Core Ultra X7 368H has a particular optimization or architectural advantage in that benchmark version, despite having fewer cores and a lower boost clock. However, in the adjacent Cinebench R15 and R23 tests, the Core Ultra 7 265 wins by 49.6% in both multi-core and single-core, which indicates the R20 result is an outlier rather than a consistent pattern.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different series and generations within Intel's Core Ultra lineup. The Core Ultra 7 265 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. The Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake-H. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the desktop part is fabricated by TSMC, while the mobile part is fabricated by Intel. The desktop part has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the mobile part has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core counts differ: the Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Cache configurations also diverge. Both have a per-core L1 cache of 192 KB. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the desktop part and 2.5 MB per core on the mobile part. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Core Ultra 7 265 and 18 MB on the Core Ultra X7 368H. Neither chip implements 3D V-Cache.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 memory, runs dual-channel, and has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs substantially: the desktop part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the mobile part provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are different, with the desktop part using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units and the mobile part using Arc B390. The socket types are entirely different: Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part. The desktop part has a launch MSRP of $394, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the mobile part. Both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H outperform the Intel Core Ultra 7 265?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in Cinebench R20 multi-core with a score of 11852 versus 6268, and in Cinebench R20 single-core with a score of 1673 versus 884. These are the only two wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is fabricated by TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is fabricated by Intel.

Q: What is the maximum boost clock for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 support, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin belongs to the Core Ultra 7 265 in PassMark random string sorting, where it leads by 67.6% with 63833 against 38093. Data compression follows closely at 67.1% with 522983 versus 312927. Floating point math shows a 63.5% lead with 172776 versus 105681. Extended instructions come in at 61.6% with 41478 versus 25669. Data encryption shows 60.4% with 40456 versus 25228. Integer math is 53% ahead with 134773 versus 88083. The multithread test shows a 50.8% lead with 49682 versus 32956. Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core both show a 49.6% lead for the desktop part, with scores of 4255 versus 2844 and 600 versus 401 respectively. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same 49.6% margin with 42216 versus 28221, and the single-core result follows with 5960 versus 3984. Find prime numbers shows a 30.2% lead with 418 versus 321. Single-thread PassMark shows a 17.1% lead with 4689 versus 4005, and the duplicate singlethread entry records the same values. The physics test is the closest contest, with the Core Ultra 7 265 winning by only 2.3% with 2923 versus 2857.

The two wins for the Core Ultra X7 368H are both in Cinebench R20. The multi-core result of 11852 versus 6268 represents a 47.1% advantage for the mobile chip, and the single-core result of 1673 versus 884 represents a 47.2% advantage. These margins are nearly identical in percentage terms, which suggests a consistent scaling factor in that benchmark version. The R20 results are anomalous when compared to the R15 and R23 results, where the desktop part wins by the same 49.6% margin in both multi-core and single-core tests. The data shows that the Core Ultra X7 368H does not maintain its R20 advantage in the adjacent Cinebench versions, so the R20 win is isolated to that specific workload.

Overall, the head-to-head data shows a clear pattern: the Core Ultra 7 265 wins the vast majority of tests by substantial margins, while the Core Ultra X7 368H wins only the R20 tests but by equally substantial margins. The average benchmark score of 64640 for the desktop part versus 40518 for the mobile part confirms the overall performance hierarchy, with the desktop part sitting at the 93rd percentile and the mobile part at the 87th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the desktop part and 2.00 GHz for the mobile part. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively. TDP values are 65 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part. The socket types are Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop part and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part.

Architecture and codename differ: Arrow Lake with Arrow Lake-S for the Core Ultra 7 265, and Panther Lake with Panther Lake-H for the Core Ultra X7 368H. The generation labels are Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) and Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H). The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry is TSMC for the desktop part and Intel for the mobile part. Transistor count is 17,800 million for the desktop part, with no recorded value for the mobile part. Die size is 243 mm² for the desktop part, with no recorded value for the mobile part.

Cache specifications differ in L2 and L3. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 7 265 and 2.5 MB per core on the Core Ultra X7 368H. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the desktop part and 18 MB on the mobile part. Memory support is DDR5 for the desktop part and LPDDR5X for the mobile part. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the desktop part and 153.6 GB/s for the mobile part. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity shows a major difference: the Core Ultra 7 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units on the desktop part and Arc B390 on the mobile part. Market segments are Desktop for the Core Ultra 7 265 and Mobile for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Production status is Active for both. Release dates are 2025-01-06 for the desktop part and 2026-01-04 for the mobile part. A launch MSRP of $394 is recorded for the desktop part, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the mobile part. Both have locked multipliers, and part numbers are SRQCX for the desktop part and SA4R7Q9EJ for the mobile part.