Intel Core Ultra 7 265F vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H claiming only a single victory in the PassMark physics test. The 265F delivers a 29% advantage across the entire Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites, both single-core and multi-core. Its average benchmark score of 64438 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the X9 378H averages 47468, sitting in the 89th percentile.

The data indicates the 265F is the appropriate choice for desktop users who prioritize raw compute throughput, particularly in floating-point and integer mathematics where it leads by 51.8% and 49.1% respectively. The X9 378H, however, is a mobile processor with a 25 TDP and integrated Arc B390 graphics, making it suitable for portable systems where the physics test result of 3404 versus 3172 suggests a modest advantage in that specific workload. Desktop builders should select the 265F; mobile system designers should consider the X9 378H for its integrated graphics and lower power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineups and foundries. The Core Ultra 7 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Core Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake codename, and is fabricated by Intel on its own 3 nm process. The 265F is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, while the X9 378H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540.

Transistor and die measurements are only recorded for the 265F, which contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The X9 378H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. Core configurations differ substantially: the 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as core and thread counts match in both cases.

Cache hierarchies share the same L1 size of 192 KB per core, but differ from there. The 265F has 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The X9 378H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The 265F also carries a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost on the X9 378H.

Memory support diverges as well. The 265F uses DDR5 memory with dual-channel support and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 378H uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel support and a higher 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the X9 378H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The X9 378H includes integrated Arc B390 graphics, while the 265F has no integrated graphics.

Release timing separates these parts by over a year. The 265F launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $379. The X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03. Both carry locked multipliers and are listed as active production parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent 29% lead for the 265F across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 265F scores 4231 against 3281, a 29% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 597 versus 462, a 29.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 17631 versus 13672, and single-core delivers 2488 versus 1929, both at 29%. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 41980 versus 32553, with single-core at 5926 versus 4595, again 29%.

PassMark results show wider variance. The largest single delta is in floating-point math, where the 265F scores 173855 against 114500, a 51.8% lead. Integer math follows closely with 138078 versus 92603, a 49.1% edge. Random string sorting shows a 39.8% gap, with scores of 62439 and 44648. Data encryption produces a 32.3% difference, 39468 versus 29840. Data compression records 507018 against 386591, a 31.2% lead. Extended instructions show 39235 versus 31315, a 25.3% margin. Find prime numbers delivers 416 versus 357, a 16.5% lead. Multi-thread performance shows 49410 versus 38298, a 29% gap.

Single-thread PassMark results narrow the gap considerably. The 265F scores 4750 against 4453, a 6.7% lead, the smallest winning margin in the dataset. The only X9 378H victory comes in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 3404 against 3172, a 6.8% advantage.

The nearest rival data places both processors in familiar company. The 265F sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-13900KS and within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 7343. The X9 378H trades within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-12900F and within 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-13700KF.

Specification Differences

The recorded specification fields that differ between the two processors are as follows:

• Series: Core Ultra Series 2 versus Core Ultra Series 3
• Cores: 20 versus 16
• Threads: 20 versus 16
• Base clock: 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz
• TDP: 65 versus 25
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Codename: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake
• Generation: Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H)
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 17,800 million versus not recorded
• Die size: 243 mm² versus not recorded
• L2 cache: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 20 lanes versus Gen 5, 4 lanes
• Integrated graphics: N/A versus Arc B390
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2025-01-06 versus 2026-04-03
• Launch MSRP: $379 versus not recorded
• Part number: SRQCV versus unknown

Fields that match include L1 cache at 192 KB per core, dual-channel memory bus, no ECC support, locked multiplier, and active production status. The architecture field is recorded as Arrow Lake for the 265F and is null for the X9 378H, though the codename identifies it as Panther Lake.

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 X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

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

A: The 265F leads by 29% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. PassMark multi-thread shows the same 29% gap, with scores of 49410 and 38298.

Q: Which processor wins the physics benchmark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3404, which is 6.8% higher than the 265F's 3172. This is the only head-to-head test the X9 378H wins.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two?

A: Floating-point math shows the biggest gap. The 265F scores 173855, which is 51.8% higher than the X9 378H's 114500. Integer math is close behind at 49.1% in favor of the 265F.

Q: How close are these processors to their nearest rivals?

A: The 265F averages 64438, within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-13900KS and 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 7343. The X9 378H averages 47468, within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-12900F and 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-13700KF.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?

A: The 265F supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 378H supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 378H has the higher bandwidth figure despite being a mobile part.