Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H occupy opposite ends of the Intel mobile and desktop spectrum, yet both are active products in the database. The 270K Plus is a desktop part aimed at maximum throughput, while the 368H is a mobile processor designed for efficiency within a constrained power envelope. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the desktop chip dominates almost every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented test, while the mobile chip wins in two specific single-core Cinebench scenarios. The recorded data indicates that these processors are not direct competitors but rather solutions for different workloads, with the 270K Plus delivering overwhelming compute performance and the 368H providing a more modest but still competitive single-thread showing.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, establishing itself as the clear performance leader across the board. Its victories span all Passmark tests, including data compression (804322 vs 312927), integer math (175986 vs 88083), and multithread (68574 vs 32956). The desktop chip also wins every Cinebench multi-core test, with particularly large margins in R15 (134% ahead) and R20 (106.4% ahead). The single Passmark single-thread test also goes to the 270K Plus, which scores 5068 against the 368H's 4005, a 26.5% advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H takes only two wins, both in Cinebench single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 368H scores 401 against the 270K Plus's 354, a delta of -11.7% in favor of the mobile chip. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 368H scores 3984 against 2439, a much larger 38.8% advantage. These wins indicate that the mobile processor's architecture, with its higher per-core efficiency, can outperform the desktop part in specific lightly-threaded Cinebench workloads, despite having a lower boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 5.50 GHz). The data suggests that the 368H is the better choice for applications that rely heavily on single-core Cinebench performance, but the 270K Plus is superior for everything else.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average score of 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile. The 270K Plus is more than double the average score of the 368H.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 44253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28221. The 270K Plus leads by 56.8%, a significant margin that reflects its higher core count and desktop power budget.

Q: Does the mobile chip ever beat the desktop chip?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (401 vs 354) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3984 vs 2439). These are the only two tests where the 368H comes out ahead, and they are both single-threaded workloads.

Q: What is the difference in data compression performance?

A: In Passmark data compression, the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 804322, which is 157% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H's score of 312927. This is the largest percentage win for the desktop chip.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The desktop chip has 8 more cores and 8 more threads than the mobile chip.

Q: How does the single-thread Passmark score compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 5068 in Passmark single-thread, which is 26.5% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H's score of 4005. Despite losing the Cinebench single-core tests, the 270K Plus wins the Passmark single-thread test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus comes in Passmark data compression, where it scores 804322 against the 368H's 312927. This 157% delta indicates that the desktop chip processes compressed data at more than two and a half times the rate of the mobile part. Similarly, in Passmark random string sorting, the 270K Plus scores 96945 versus 38093, a 154.5% advantage. These are the two biggest wins for the desktop chip, showing its dominance in memory-intensive and data-manipulation workloads.

Cinebench multi-core results follow a similar pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 270K Plus scores 6656 against 2844, a 134% lead. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 24461 and 11852, a 106.4% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows a narrower but still substantial 56.8% lead, with scores of 44253 and 28221. These results confirm that the desktop chip's 24 cores provide a massive advantage over the 16 cores of the mobile chip when all cores are utilized.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H's wins are isolated to Cinebench single-core tests. In R15 single-core, the 368H scores 401, which is 11.7% higher than the 270K Plus's 354. In R23 single-core, the 368H scores 3984, a 38.8% advantage over the 270K Plus's 2439. These are notable reversals, as the 270K Plus has a higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz compared to the 368H's 5.00 GHz. The data suggests that the 368H's Panther Lake architecture is more efficient per clock in these specific single-threaded Cinebench tests, despite the lower frequency.

The Passmark integer math test shows a 99.8% lead for the 270K Plus, with scores of 175986 and 88083. Floating point math shows a 117.2% lead, with scores of 229491 and 105681. The multithread test shows a 108.1% lead, with scores of 68574 and 32956. The physics test shows a 42.2% lead, with scores of 4064 and 2857. All of these results point to the same conclusion: the 270K Plus is far more capable in any workload that can utilize multiple cores or heavy math operations.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their fundamental specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for the desktop chip and 2.00 GHz for the mobile chip. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. The TDP is 125 watts for the 270K Plus and 25 watts for the 368H, reflecting the desktop part's much higher power budget.

The 270K Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851, while the 368H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the mobile chip does not. Memory support differs as well: the 270K Plus supports DDR5 memory, while the 368H supports LPDDR5X. The memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s for the desktop part and 153.6 GB/s for the mobile part, which is a notable reversal, as the mobile chip has higher bandwidth despite its lower power. The 270K Plus supports ECC memory, while the 368H does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the 270K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the 368H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is based on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is based on the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3. It is also manufactured on a 3 nm process, but by Intel rather than TSMC. The 368H has no die size or transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the 270K Plus has 3 MB per core, while the 368H has 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared for the desktop chip and 18 MB shared for the mobile chip. The integrated graphics also differ: the 270K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, while the 368H uses the Arc B390. The 270K Plus was released on 2026-03-10, while the 368H was released earlier on 2026-01-04.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the superior processor for multi-threaded workloads, with massive leads in every Passmark test and all Cinebench multi-core tests. Its 24 cores, higher clock speeds, and 125 watt power budget allow it to deliver 134% more performance in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 157% more in data compression. The 270K Plus also wins single-thread Passmark, scoring 5068 against the 368H's 4005. For anyone running CPU-intensive desktop applications, the 270K Plus is the obvious choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, with its 16 cores and 25 watt TDP, is designed for mobile systems where power efficiency is critical. Its wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests show that it can outperform the 270K Plus in specific lightly-threaded scenarios, despite a lower boost clock. The 368H also has higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s compared to 115.2 GB/s, which may benefit certain workloads. However, the overall average benchmark score of 40518 is less than half of the 270K Plus's 93785, confirming that the mobile chip is not a performance equal.

Users should select the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus if they need maximum multi-core throughput, as it wins 15 of 17 benchmarks and ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Users should select the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H if they require a low-power mobile processor with competitive single-core Cinebench performance, as it wins those two tests and ranks in the 87th percentile. The data does not support using the 368H for heavy multi-threaded work, as the 270K Plus is consistently more than twice as fast in those tests.