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

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX records an average benchmark score of 63173, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 47468. That places the 265HX at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 89th percentile for the X9 378H.

Q: Which chip wins the majority of head-to-head tests?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The only exception is PassMark physics, where the X9 378H leads by 12.5 percent.

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

A: The Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither uses simultaneous multithreading, so core count equals thread count for both.

Q: How different are the clock speeds?

A: The 265HX starts at a 2.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.30 GHz. The X9 378H starts at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The 265HX holds a 0.60 GHz base advantage and a 0.30 GHz boost advantage.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The 265HX supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The X9 378H supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different?

A: Yes. The 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The X9 378H uses Arc B390 graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores for either.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 265HX dominates nearly every workload category in the recorded data. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests, plus PassMark data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margin ranges from a narrow 1.1 percent in single-thread performance to a massive 41.1 percent in floating point math.

The X9 378H claims exactly one victory: PassMark physics, scoring 3404 against 2978 for the 265HX. That 12.5 percent advantage suggests the X9 378H has a specialized strength in physics simulation, which often relies on specific instruction patterns that favor its architecture. Outside that single test, the X9 378H trails consistently.

The practical split is clear. The 265HX is the general-purpose performance leader across rendering, compression, encryption, and arithmetic workloads. The X9 378H is the choice only when the workload matches the PassMark physics test profile, likely a niche scenario in real-world use.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and foundries. The Ultra 7 265HX belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Ultra X9 378H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake-H codename, and is fabricated by Intel on the same 3 nm process node.

The 265HX has a larger die at 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The X9 378H has no recorded die size or transistor count in the database. The cache structures differ notably. Both share a 192 KB L1 per core, but the 265HX has 3 MB L2 per core versus 2.5 MB for the X9 378H. The shared L3 also favors the 265HX at 30 MB versus 18 MB for the X9 378H.

Socket compatibility diverges completely. The 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the X9 378H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not interchangeable. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 265HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the X9 378H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU.

The X9 378H has a locked multiplier, whereas the 265HX has an unlocked multiplier, meaning overclocking headroom exists only on the 265HX. The X9 378H also has an unknown part number, while the 265HX is identified as SRVFH.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is 20 versus 16, a 4-core advantage for the 265HX. Thread counts match core counts for both, so no hyper-threading advantage exists for either. Base clocks differ by 0.60 GHz in favor of the 265HX, and boost clocks differ by 0.30 GHz in the same direction.

Thermal design power shows a major split: the 265HX is rated at 55 W, while the X9 378H is rated at 25 W. That 30 W gap indicates the X9 378H is built for lower power envelopes, likely thinner or fanless mobile designs. The 265HX demands more cooling headroom.

Memory bandwidth favors the X9 378H despite its lower core count. The X9 378H records 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 265HX. Memory type differs accordingly, with LPDDR5X on the X9 378H and DDR5 on the 265HX.

Both support dual-channel memory and neither supports ECC. Release dates differ by over a year: the 265HX launched on 2025-01-12, while the X9 378H launched on 2026-04-03. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The integrated GPU differs as noted: 64 EU Arc Xe-LPG on the 265HX versus Arc B390 on the X9 378H. The X9 378H also has fewer PCIe lanes, which may limit external GPU or NVMe expansion options.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the 265HX comes in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 161605 against 114500 for the X9 378H, a 41.1 percent advantage. That is a decisive gap for any workload relying on heavy FPU throughput, such as scientific computing or certain rendering tasks.

PassMark integer math shows a 37.1 percent lead for the 265HX, with scores of 126954 versus 92603. Random string sorting follows at 39.9 percent, with 62458 versus 44648. These three tests alone establish the 265HX as the clear arithmetic and data-manipulation winner.

Data compression favors the 265HX by 32.4 percent, scoring 511817 versus 386591. Data encryption shows a 32.3 percent lead, at 39472 versus 29840. Extended instructions score 40741 versus 31315, a 30.1 percent margin. The pattern is consistent: the 265HX outperforms by 30 to 40 percent in most PassMark sub-tests.

Cinebench results cluster tightly around 25 percent margins. Multi-core R15, R20, and R23 all show exactly 24.8 percent advantages for the 265HX. Single-core tests show 25.1 percent for R15, 24.9 percent for R20, and 24.9 percent for R23. The 265HX scores 4096, 17069, and 40642 in multi-core R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus 3281, 13672, and 32553 for the X9 378H.

The smallest 265HX win is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4500 versus 4453, a 1.1 percent margin. That near-tie indicates the X9 378H has competitive single-core throughput despite lower clocks, likely due to architectural efficiency in Panther Lake.

The sole X9 378H win is PassMark physics at 3404 versus 2978, a 12.5 percent margin. PassMark multithread goes to the 265HX by 25.3 percent, scoring 47985 versus 38298. Prime number finding is the closest of the larger wins, with the 265HX ahead by 13.7 percent at 406 versus 357.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to one unambiguous conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the stronger processor across nearly all measured workloads. With 16 wins out of 17 comparisons, its lead is not marginal. It holds double-digit advantages in every Cinebench test and most PassMark tests, with the largest gaps exceeding 40 percent.

The 265HX wins on core count, thread count, base clock, boost clock, L2 cache per core, L3 cache, PCIe lanes, and multiplier unlock. It also carries a higher TDP of 55 W, which explains its performance ceiling. The X9 378H cannot match it in raw throughput, but it does offer lower power consumption at 25 W, higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s, and a later release date.

The X9 378H is the appropriate pick for systems where power draw is the limiting factor and where the PassMark physics workload is relevant. Its 12.5 percent win there is real, but it is a single test. The 265HX is the correct choice for rendering, compression, encryption, arithmetic, and general multithreaded work, where its 25 to 41 percent leads are decisive.

For users prioritizing maximum compute performance in a mobile platform, the 265HX is the data-backed winner. For users prioritizing efficiency and a newer architecture with higher memory bandwidth, the X9 378H offers a niche but valid alternative. The average benchmark scores, 63173 versus 47468, summarize the gap: the 265HX sits 33 percent higher, and its 93rd percentile ranking versus 89th confirms its broader appeal.