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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the 265F scores 173,855 versus 105,681, a 64.5% advantage. Random string sorting shows a 63.9% gap (62,439 vs 38,093), and data compression delivers a 62% lead (507,018 vs 312,927). Integer math follows at 56.8% (138,078 vs 88,083), while data encryption posts a 56.4% edge (39,468 vs 25,228). Extended instructions land at 52.8% (39,235 vs 25,669).

Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. The R15 multi-core test shows 4,231 versus 2,844, a 48.8% win. Single-core R15 is 597 versus 401, a 48.9% margin. R20 multi-core produces 17,631 versus 11,852, again 48.8%. R20 single-core is 2,488 versus 1,673, a 48.7% gap. R23 multi-core sees 41,980 versus 28,221, a 48.8% difference, and R23 single-core is 5,926 versus 3,984, a 48.7% margin. These consistent deltas suggest a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

Multithread performance in PassMark shows 49,410 versus 32,956, a 49.9% lead. Single-thread performance is closer: 4,750 versus 4,005, an 18.6% advantage. The smallest gap appears in PassMark physics, where the 265F scores 3,172 and the 368H scores 2,857, an 11% difference. Prime number finding shows a 29.6% edge (416 vs 321). The 265F also holds an 87th percentile versus all CPUs compared to the 368H's 87th percentile, but the average benchmark score tells the story: 64,438 versus 40,518.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel families with distinct design targets. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) from Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake (Panther Lake-H) from Core Ultra Series 3. Both are built on a 3 nm process, but the foundry differs: TSMC produces the 265F, Intel produces the 368H.

Core counts diverge substantially. The 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The 265F's transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm²; the 368H has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Cache hierarchies share the same L1 configuration at 192 KB per core. The L2 differs: 3 MB per core on the 265F versus 2.5 MB per core on the 368H. L3 cache is 30 MB shared on the 265F versus 18 MB shared on the 368H. This larger cache pool contributes to the 265F's higher throughput in cache-sensitive benchmarks like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support also separates the two. The 265F uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 368H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Despite the mobile chip's faster memory interface, it cannot overcome the core-count and cache deficits in the benchmark suite. PCIe lane counts differ sharply: the 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 368H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are absent on the 265F (recorded as N/A), while the 368H includes Arc B390 graphics. The 265F targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1851, a 65 TDP, and a launch MSRP of $379. The 368H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 TDP and no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers. Release dates are January 6, 2025 for the 265F and January 4, 2026 for the 368H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265F scores 41,980 versus 28,221, a 48.8% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 17,631 versus 11,852, also 48.8%.

Q: Is the desktop chip always faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, but the margin is smaller than multi-core. PassMark single-thread shows 4,750 versus 4,005, an 18.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5,926 versus 3,984, a 48.7% gap.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The 265F uses DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 368H uses LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile chip has higher bandwidth despite lower performance.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The 265F has no integrated graphics (recorded as N/A). The 368H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics.

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between them?

A: PassMark physics shows the smallest gap at 11%, with scores of 3,172 versus 2,857. Prime number finding is next at 29.6%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 265F | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

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

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 | 25 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H) |

| 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 | 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 | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Launch MSRP | $379 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQCV | SA4R7Q9EJ |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded benchmark comparison. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core and compute-heavy workloads. PassMark floating point math (64.5% lead), data compression (62%), random string sorting (63.9%), and integer math (56.8%) all show substantial margins. Cinebench multi-core tests consistently deliver around 48.8% higher scores, indicating strong scaling across its 20 cores. The larger 30 MB L3 cache and higher 5.30 GHz boost clock support these results. The desktop form factor with 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes makes it suitable for systems requiring extensive expansion.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, while losing all comparisons, holds specific advantages in the specification sheet. Its LPDDR5X memory interface delivers 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, 50% higher than the 265F's 102.4 GB/s. It includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, a feature entirely absent on the 265F. Its 25 TDP is far lower than the 265F's 65 TDP, indicating a power-efficient design for mobile use. The 368H's 87th percentile versus all CPUs still places it above most processors, and its closest rivals (Intel Core 7 253PE at -0.1%, Intel Core 5 223PE at -0.2%, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at +0.2%, Intel Xeon 6507P at +0.2%) show it sits in competitive company within its class. The 265F's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (-0.3%), AMD EPYC 7343 (+0.4%), AMD EPYC 4464P (-0.6%), and Intel Core i9-13900KS (+0.6%), placing it among high-end desktop and server parts.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The 265F serves workloads demanding raw throughput: rendering, compression, encryption, and heavy multithreaded computation. The 368H serves scenarios where integrated graphics, memory bandwidth, and low power draw matter more than absolute compute performance. Its 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and BGA socket indicate a platform designed for compact mobile systems rather than expandable desktops. The 18.6% single-thread gap in PassMark narrows the difference in lightly threaded tasks, but the 368H cannot match the 265F in any measured metric.