Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The margins vary widely, from a modest 19.5% in single-threaded PassMark tests to a dominant 237.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The largest single victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 265KF scores 7021 against 2080 for the 358H, a delta of 237.5%. This indicates a substantial per-thread performance advantage for the desktop part. The multicore gap is also very large: Cinebench R23 multicore shows the 265KF at 49736 versus 18747, a 165.3% lead. Similarly, Cinebench R15 multicore shows 5013 versus 3027, a 65.6% difference, while Cinebench R20 multicore records 20889 versus 12011, a 73.9% gap.

The PassMark suite reinforces the pattern. Data compression shows the 265KF at 666589 versus 332508, a 100.5% advantage. Extended instructions produce a 99.9% delta (54513 versus 27274). Random string sorting is close behind at 97.6% (79735 versus 40357). Data encryption shows an 85% lead (48198 versus 26046), floating point math an 82.4% lead (189431 versus 103842), and integer math a 72.4% lead (143351 versus 83147). PassMark multithread records 58518 versus 33802, a 73.1% delta. Find prime numbers shows a smaller 44.2% gap (486 versus 337), and physics a 20.3% gap (3633 versus 3021).

The narrowest margins appear in the single-threaded PassMark tests. Both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread record 4928 for the 265KF versus 4124 for the 358H, a 19.5% delta. Even here the desktop chip leads, but the mobile processor is comparatively closer in this metric than in any other recorded test.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall gap. The 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, while the 358H sits at 40967. The 265KF ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, whereas the 358H ranks in the 87th percentile.

The nearest rivals listed for the 265KF illustrate its competitive position. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX has an average score of 71797, a delta of 0.2% relative to the 265KF. The Intel Xeon 6517P scores 72350, a delta of -0.6%. The Intel Xeon 6724P scores 72396, a delta of -0.7%. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 scores 71370, a delta of 0.8%. The 358H sits among different competitors: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 averages 41208 (-0.6%), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215 (-0.6%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G averages 40718 (0.6%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263 (-0.7%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel Core Ultra series and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is a desktop part. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake codename with the Panther Lake-H generation identifier, and is a mobile part.

Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 265KF is fabricated by TSMC, while the 358H is fabricated by Intel. The 265KF has a documented transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 358H has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, as core and thread counts match in both cases. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and L2 is also identical at 3 MB per core. The L3 cache differs: 30 MB shared on the 265KF versus 18 MB shared on the 358H.

The base and boost clocks show a large separation. The 265KF has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The desktop part runs higher at both ends of the frequency range, which contributes to its benchmark dominance.

The 265KF has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 358H has a TDP of 25 watts. This fivefold difference in thermal envelope explains much of the performance gap, as the desktop part has far more power headroom for sustained high-frequency operation. The 358H, with its 25 watt TDP, is clearly designed for power-constrained mobile environments.

Memory support also differs. The 265KF supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 358H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The mobile part has a higher memory bandwidth figure despite its lower power budget, reflecting the use of low-power DRAM with wide interfaces.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The 265KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part has five times the CPU-attached PCIe lanes, which matters for discrete GPU and storage expansion. The 358H includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc B390, while the 265KF has no integrated graphics (N/A).

The 265KF has an unlocked multiplier, indicating overclocking support, while the 358H does not. The 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, which is a soldered mobile package. The 265KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the 358H has a release date of 2026-01-04. The 265KF has a recorded launch MSRP of $379, while the 358H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins every recorded benchmark, so the analysis of where each one wins is based on the magnitude and character of the margins rather than on which side takes individual tests.

The 265KF delivers its largest advantages in Cinebench R23 single-core (237.5% lead) and multicore (165.3% lead). These results indicate a processor that excels in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering workloads. The R23 single-core result in particular shows that the desktop part has a very strong single-thread performance advantage, which benefits everyday responsiveness and applications that rely on a few fast cores.

The 265KF also dominates data compression (100.5% lead), extended instructions (99.9%), and random string sorting (97.6%). These PassMark tests exercise memory access patterns and instruction throughput, and the desktop part roughly doubles the mobile part in each. Integer math shows a 72.4% lead and floating point math an 82.4% lead, indicating broad arithmetic throughput superiority.

The 358H, despite losing every test, shows where a mobile processor can remain competitive. Its smallest deficits are in PassMark single-thread (19.5%), physics (20.3%), and find prime numbers (44.2%). These results suggest that in lightly threaded integer workloads, the 358H comes reasonably close to the desktop part, likely due to its higher boost clock relative to its power budget. The physics test at a 20.3% gap is the second closest result, indicating that this particular workload does not exaggerate the overall performance difference.

The 358H also has the advantage of integrated graphics with Arc B390, which the 265KF lacks entirely. For systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU, the 358H is the only one of the two that can function on its own. The 358H also records a higher memory bandwidth figure (153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), which benefits integrated graphics and memory-bound mobile workloads.

The market segments clearly separate the two. The 265KF is a desktop processor with a 125 watt TDP, 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and an unlocked multiplier, positioning it for high-performance desktop builds with discrete graphics. The 358H is a mobile processor with a 25 watt TDP, 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and a locked multiplier, positioning it for laptops where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than raw throughput.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields.

Cores and threads: The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Clock speeds: The 265KF has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

TDP: The 265KF has a TDP of 125 watts. The 358H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Socket: The 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851. The 358H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Architecture and codename: The 265KF uses Arrow Lake architecture with codename Arrow Lake-S. The 358H has no architecture field recorded, with codename Panther Lake and generation identifier Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H).

Foundry: The 265KF is fabricated by TSMC. The 358H is fabricated by Intel.

Transistors and die size: The 265KF has 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The 358H has neither recorded.

L3 cache: The 265KF has 30 MB shared L3. The 358H has 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support: The 265KF supports DDR5. The 358H supports LPDDR5X.

Memory bandwidth: The 265KF has 102.4 GB/s. The 358H has 153.6 GB/s.

PCIe: The 265KF has Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only). The 358H has Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics: The 265KF has N/A. The 358H has Arc B390.

Market segment: The 265KF is Desktop. The 358H is Mobile.

Release date: The 265KF was released on 2024-10-23. The 358H was released on 2026-01-04.

Multiplier unlocked: The 265KF has an unlocked multiplier. The 358H does not.

Part number: The 265KF has part number SRQCU. The 358H has part number SA4RAQ9ET.

Launch MSRP: The 265KF has a launch MSRP of $379. The 358H has none recorded.

Percentile: The 265KF ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs. The 358H ranks in the 87th percentile.

Average benchmark score: The 265KF has 71910. The 358H has 40967.

Fields that are identical include: manufacturer (Intel), process node (3 nm), L1 cache (192 KB per core), L2 cache (3 MB per core), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC memory support (false for both), and production status (Active for both).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The 358H does not win any of the comparisons.

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

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 265KF scores 7021 versus 2080 for the 358H, a delta of 237.5%. The next largest is Cinebench R23 multicore at 165.3% (49736 versus 18747).

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the 265KF scores 4928 versus 4124 for the 358H, a delta of 19.5%. The physics test is the second smallest at 20.3% (3633 versus 3021).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, while the 358H has 40967. The 265KF ranks in the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the 358H ranks in the 87th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The 265KF supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 358H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The 265KF has no integrated graphics (recorded as N/A). The 358H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics.