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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF records an average benchmark score of 71910, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215. The 265KF sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the 356H.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The 265KF scores 49736 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 18395 for the 356H. That is a 170.4% advantage for the desktop part.

Q: Does the mobile chip win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The recorded data shows 17 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF and 0 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H across all compared tests.

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

A: The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports a broader range of memory types?

A: The 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the 265KF supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The 265KF has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). The 356H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineups and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop part from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. Its generation is listed as Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake). The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename, placing it in the mobile segment.

Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The 265KF is fabricated by TSMC, while the 356H is fabricated by Intel. The 265KF also has a listed transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the database records no transistor count or die size for the 356H.

The core configuration separates them clearly. The 265KF provides 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 356H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The 265KF has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 356H runs at a 1.90 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. The desktop chip also has a much higher thermal design power at 125, versus 25 for the mobile chip.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core L1 size at 192 KB per core, but diverge from there. The 265KF carries 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 356H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory bandwidth also differs: the 265KF reaches 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5, while the 356H reaches 115.2 GB/s using DDR5 or LPDDR5X. The PCIe lane allocation favors the desktop part, with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes for the 265KF versus Gen 5 and 12 CPU lanes for the 356H.

The 265KF is an unlocked part with a multiplier unlocked for overclocking, while the 356H has a locked multiplier. The 265KF uses the Intel Socket 1851, and the 356H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The 265KF launched on 2024-10-23 with a launch MSRP of $379; the 356H launched on 2026-01-04 with no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark set shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF. Across all 17 compared tests, the desktop chip wins every single one. The margins, however, vary considerably depending on the workload.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The 265KF scores 7021, while the 356H scores 2040, a 244.2% difference. That is a massive per-thread advantage, driven by the 5.50 GHz boost clock versus 4.70 GHz, combined with the architectural differences between Arrow Lake and Panther Lake. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similarly large gap at 133.3%, with scores of 707 and 303 respectively.

Multi-core rendering also favors the 265KF heavily. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265KF posts 49736 against 18395 for the 356H, a 170.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 71.9% advantage (20889 versus 12153), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 64.1% advantage (5013 versus 3055). The extra four cores, higher clocks, and larger L3 cache all contribute to these results.

PassMark tests reveal consistent wins across different workload types. Data compression shows the 265KF at 666589 versus 336177, a 98.3% margin. Extended instructions give 54513 against 27898, a 95.4% lead. Random string sorting produces 79735 versus 40990, a 94.5% difference. Data encryption shows 48198 versus 26345, an 82.9% gap. Floating point math records 189431 against 103128, a 83.7% advantage. Integer math delivers 143351 versus 83111, a 72.5% lead.

The smaller margins appear in tests that are less dependent on raw core count and clocks. PassMark single-thread shows 4928 versus 4072, a 21% lead for the 265KF. PassMark physics gives 3633 versus 2895, a 25.5% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers records 486 versus 327, a 48.6% margin.

The passmark_multithread test shows 58518 for the 265KF and 33978 for the 356H, a 72.2% difference. The pattern is uniform: the 265KF delivers higher scores in every category, with the largest deltas in single-core rendering and the smallest in single-thread integer work.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 3.90 GHz for the 265KF and 1.90 GHz for the 356H. Boost clock is 5.50 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. Thermal design power is 125 versus 25.

The socket is Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop chip and Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile chip. Architecture is Arrow Lake versus Panther Lake. The codename is Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. The generation is Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). Both use a 3 nm process, but the foundry is TSMC for the 265KF and Intel for the 356H.

The 265KF lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The 356H has no recorded transistor count or die size. L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the 265KF and 2.5 MB per core for the 356H. L3 cache is 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. L1 cache is the same at 192 KB per core.

Memory support shows DDR5 for the 265KF and DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for the 356H. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the 265KF and Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the 356H. Integrated graphics are absent on the 265KF and present as Intel Xe3 Graphics on the 356H.

Market segment is Desktop for the 265KF and Mobile for the 356H. The multiplier is unlocked on the 265KF and locked on the 356H. Release dates are 2024-10-23 and 2026-01-04 respectively. The 265KF has a launch MSRP of $379; the 356H has no launch MSRP recorded. Part numbers are SRQCU and SA4RGQ9EU.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons and holds a 94th percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus 87th for the 356H. The average benchmark score of 71910 for the 265KF exceeds the 41215 of the 356H by roughly 74%. The nearest rivals for the 265KF include the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at 71797 (0.2% lower), the Intel Xeon 6517P at 72350 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Xeon 6724P at 72396 (0.7% higher). The 356H sits close to the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263.

The desktop part is the stronger processor in every measured workload. The 356H, however, is a mobile chip with a 25 watt TDP and integrated graphics, so the comparison is not about equal footing. The data shows the 265KF as the choice for raw performance, while the 356H exists in a different power and form factor envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins every benchmark category in the recorded data. For single-core tasks, its 244.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 133.3% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core make it the clear choice for lightly threaded applications. For multi-core rendering, the 170.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 71.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core confirm its dominance in video encoding, 3D rendering, and simulation workloads.

PassMark results reinforce the same conclusion. The 265KF leads by 98.3% in data compression, 95.4% in extended instructions, and 94.5% in random string sorting. These are relevant for archival tools, cryptographic workloads, and data processing pipelines. Floating point math shows an 83.7% lead, integer math a 72.5% lead, and multithread a 72.2% lead. Even the closer margins, such as 21% in single-thread and 25.5% in physics, still favor the desktop chip.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does not win any head-to-head test. Its position in the database is defined by its mobile characteristics: a 25 watt TDP, BGA 2540 socket, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and support for LPDDR5X memory. The higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 265KF is the only measured specification where the mobile chip shows an advantage. For systems requiring low power consumption, compact mobile form factors, and integrated graphics, the 356H fills that role even though its benchmark scores trail the 265KF in every recorded test.