Intel Core Ultra 7 356H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41,215, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V scores 23,219. The Ultra 7 356H also sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 76th percentile for the Ultra 9 288V.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Both processors lack simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two chips?

A: The Ultra 7 356H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Ultra 9 288V runs at a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and reaches a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Both chips use 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4,274, which is 4.7% ahead of the Ultra 7 356H's score of 4,072. This is one of only two benchmark wins for the Ultra 9 288V.

Q: Which processor was released more recently?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H carries a release date of 2026-01-04, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V was released on 2024-09-23. Both processors are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families within Intel's mobile lineup. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Lunar Lake architecture. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the Ultra 7 356H is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 9 288V is produced by TSMC.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Ultra 7 356H packs 16 cores and 16 threads, double the 8 cores and 8 threads of the Ultra 9 288V. Neither chip enables hyper-threading, so each core maps to a single thread. The cache hierarchy shares the same per-core L1 and L2 allocations, with 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 differs: 18 MB for the Ultra 7 356H versus 12 MB for the Ultra 9 288V.

Memory support also separates the two. The Ultra 7 356H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration, delivering a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but achieves a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Ultra 9 288V carries the Arc 140V. The PCIe configurations are notably different: the Ultra 7 356H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes, whereas the Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU-only lanes. The two chips also use different sockets, with the Ultra 7 356H on Intel BGA 2540 and the Ultra 9 288V on Intel BGA 2833. The power envelope is slightly higher on the Ultra 9 288V at 30 TDP, compared to 25 TDP for the Ultra 7 356H.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a lopsided matchup. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins only 2. The Ultra 7 356H dominates every multi-threaded and compute-heavy workload in the database, including all three Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark integer math, floating-point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and random string sorting.

The Ultra 9 288V's advantages are confined to single-threaded PassMark tests. It wins both the PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread tests, which are duplicate entries of the same measurement, with a score of 4,274 versus 4,072. This 4.7% edge in single-threaded integer performance suggests the Ultra 9 288V has slightly better per-core efficiency in lightly threaded workloads, likely due to its higher base and boost clocks.

For workloads that scale with core count or rely on heavy sustained throughput, the Ultra 7 356H is the clear choice. Its 16 cores deliver more than double the multi-core Cinebench scores, and its PassMark multithread score of 33,978 is 71.5% ahead of the Ultra 9 288V's 19,810. The data indicates the Ultra 7 356H is better suited for rendering, compilation, scientific computing, and other parallel tasks. The Ultra 9 288V, with its higher clock speeds and narrower core count, shows a niche strength in single-threaded responsiveness, though the margin is modest.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes the recorded specification differences between the two processors. Fields where the two chips match, such as L1 cache per core, L2 cache per core, ECC support, and unlocked multiplier status, are not listed.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 3 | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 16 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 25 | 30 |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Architecture | Panther Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) | Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics | Arc 140V |

| Release Date | 2026-01-04 | 2024-09-23 |

| Part Number | SA4RGQ9EU | SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire matchup appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Ultra 7 356H scored 3,055 against 1,583 for the Ultra 9 288V, a delta of 93%. This near-doubling of the score reflects the core count advantage and the efficiency of the Panther Lake architecture under full load.

Cinebench R20 single-core shows a surprising outlier. The Ultra 7 356H scored 1,715 versus 997 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 72% advantage. This is unusual because single-core tests typically favor chips with higher boost clocks, but the recorded data shows the Ultra 7 356H ahead by a wide margin. The Cinebench R23 single-core result is more modest, with the Ultra 7 356H at 2,040 and the Ultra 9 288V at 1,950, a 4.6% edge. Cinebench R15 single-core is nearly identical, with scores of 303 and 301.5, a 0.5% margin.

The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows the Ultra 7 356H at 12,153 versus 7,069, a 71.9% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows a similar pattern: 18,395 versus 10,178, an 80.7% lead. These results confirm that the multi-core gap is consistent across all three Cinebench versions.

PassMark workloads reinforce the pattern. The largest PassMark delta is in integer math, where the Ultra 7 356H scored 83,111 against 44,019, an 88.8% lead. Data encryption shows an 86.3% lead with scores of 26,345 versus 14,141. Random string sorting is 81.2% ahead at 40,990 versus 22,622. Data compression delivers an 80.2% lead at 336,177 versus 186,521. Extended instructions show a 78.7% lead at 27,898 versus 15,613. Physics scores are 76.8% higher at 2,895 versus 1,637. Floating-point math is 73.2% ahead at 103,128 versus 59,536. The PassMark multithread test shows a 71.5% lead at 33,978 versus 19,810. Prime number finding rounds out the Ultra 7 356H wins with a 67.7% lead at 327 versus 195.

The only wins for the Ultra 9 288V come in the PassMark single-thread tests, where it scored 4,274 versus 4,072, a 4.7% advantage that appears twice in the database as duplicate entries. This single-thread win is notable given the Ultra 9 288V's higher clocks, but it does little to offset the substantial multi-core and throughput deficits.

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger processor for almost every measured workload. Its 16 cores and 18 MB of L3 cache produce dominant results across Cinebench multi-core and PassMark throughput tests, with deltas ranging from 67.7% to 93% in its favor. The average benchmark score of 41,215 places it near the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in the database, while the Ultra 9 288V's average of 23,219 sits near the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V offers a narrow single-threaded advantage, winning the PassMark single-thread test by 4.7%. Its higher base clock of 3.30 GHz, boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and faster memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s do not translate into broader benchmark supremacy. The data shows the Ultra 7 356H wins 15 of 17 comparisons, including the Cinebench R20 single-core test despite the Ultra 9 288V's clock advantage.

For buyers prioritizing multi-threaded workloads, rendering, data processing, or any parallel compute task, the Ultra 7 356H is the choice indicated by the measurements. The Ultra 9 288V may appeal only to scenarios where the modest single-thread PassMark edge and its older release date matter, but the benchmark evidence strongly favors the Ultra 7 356H across nearly the entire test suite.