Intel Core Ultra 7 356H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

# Intel Core Ultra 7 356H vs Intel Processor 300

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and Intel Processor 300 occupy entirely different tiers of the performance spectrum, with the database showing a decisive advantage for the Ultra 7 356H across every available workload. The Ultra 7 356H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Processor 300 lands at the 50th percentile. With no shared benchmarks recorded between the two, the comparison relies on the Ultra 7 356H's extensive benchmark suite and the Processor 300's architectural and specification profile, which together paint a clear picture of two processors designed for fundamentally different tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins every recorded benchmark category in the database, which is expected given its 16 cores and 16 threads versus the Intel Processor 300's 2 cores and 4 threads. The Ultra 7 356H delivers multicore scores that reflect its wide core count: 3055 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 12153 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 18395 in Cinebench R23 multicore. Single-core performance is also strong, with 303 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 1715 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 2040 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning its wins cannot be quantified directly. However, its specifications suggest where it could hold an advantage in real-world usage: a higher base clock of 3.90 GHz versus 1.90 GHz on the Ultra 7 356H, and a lower TDP of 46 watts compared to 25 watts on the Ultra 7 356H. The Processor 300 is a desktop part with a simpler architecture, which may translate to lower idle power draw and less thermal management complexity in a desktop chassis. The Ultra 7 356H, by contrast, is a mobile part with a 25-watt TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and sustained performance under thermal constraints matter more than raw clock speed.

The data shows the Ultra 7 356H as the clear winner in compute-bound tasks, particularly those that scale with core count. The Processor 300's advantage, if any, would appear in scenarios where its higher base clock and desktop platform provide better responsiveness in lightly threaded workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and process nodes. The Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process, while the Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process. This generational gap is significant: the 3 nm node allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, which explains how the Ultra 7 356H can pack 16 cores into a 25-watt TDP. The Processor 300's 10 nm node and 163 mm² die size are older technologies, though they serve a different market segment.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The cache hierarchy reflects this disparity: the Ultra 7 356H offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 356H's larger caches support its wider core configuration and higher throughput.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The Ultra 7 356H's support for LPDDR5X is notable for mobile platforms, where low-power memory is common.

Integrated graphics also separate the two. The Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, a modern GPU architecture suited for mobile media and light gaming. The Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710, a basic desktop GPU with limited capabilities. Neither supports ECC memory, and both have unlocked multipliers disabled.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Ultra 7 356H provides 12 CPU-only lanes on Gen 5, while the Processor 300 provides 16 CPU-only lanes on Gen 5. The Processor 300's additional lanes matter for desktop expansion, while the Ultra 7 356H's mobile design prioritizes power efficiency over expansion capacity.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the superior processor on every measurable axis in the database. Its 16-core configuration, 3 nm Panther Lake architecture, and 18 MB L3 cache deliver benchmark scores that place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41215. The Intel Processor 300, with 2 cores, 4 threads, and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot compete in multithreaded workloads and has no recorded benchmark scores to establish a performance baseline.

The Ultra 7 356H is the correct choice for mobile workloads requiring substantial compute, such as content creation, software compilation, or scientific computing. Its 25-watt TDP and 3 nm process allow it to sustain high performance in a laptop chassis. The Processor 300, with its 46-watt TDP and desktop Socket 1700 platform, is suited for entry-level desktop systems where the workload is light and the higher base clock of 3.90 GHz provides adequate single-thread responsiveness.

The data indicates that the Ultra 7 356H is a multi-threaded powerhouse, while the Processor 300 is a basic desktop part with limited headroom. For any workload that engages more than a few threads, the Ultra 7 356H is the definitive choice. For simple desktop tasks with minimal threading, the Processor 300's higher base clock may suffice, but no benchmark evidence supports a performance advantage.

FAQ

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Ultra 7 356H uses a 3 nm process, while the Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 7 356H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Processor 300.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Ultra 7 356H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The Ultra 7 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and Intel Processor 300, as the Processor 300 has an empty benchmark list. However, the Ultra 7 356H's standalone scores provide a reference for what the Processor 300 would need to match, and the gap is substantial.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 7 356H scores 18395. A 2-core, 4-thread processor like the Processor 300 would typically score a fraction of that, though no exact figure is recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 356H scores 2040, a mark that the Processor 300's 3.90 GHz base clock might approach, but without data, this remains speculative.

The PassMark suite shows the Ultra 7 356H's breadth: 336177 in data compression, 26345 in data encryption, 27898 in extended instructions, 327 in find prime numbers, 103128 in floating point math, 83111 in integer math, 33978 in multithread, 2895 in physics, 40990 in random string sorting, and 4072 in single-thread. The Processor 300, with no recorded scores, cannot be compared directly.

The nearest rivals to the Ultra 7 356H in the database are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 with an average score of 41208 and a delta of 0%, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H with 41263 and a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X with 41376 and a delta of -0.4%, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H with 40967 and a delta of 0.6%. These comparisons show the Ultra 7 356H performs within a narrow band of its closest competitors, with the Ryzen 9 5900X leading by 0.4% and the Ultra X7 358H trailing by 0.6%. The Processor 300 has no nearest rivals recorded, reflecting its lower performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Ultra 7 356H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 with a Panther Lake codename and Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation, while the Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake architecture with a Raptor Lake-S codename and Intel Processor (Raptor Lake) generation.

Core and thread counts: 16 cores and 16 threads on the Ultra 7 356H versus 2 cores and 4 threads on the Processor 300. Base clocks are 1.90 GHz and 3.90 GHz, respectively; the Processor 300 has no boost clock recorded, while the Ultra 7 356H boosts to 4.70 GHz. TDP is 25 watts versus 46 watts. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 7 356H, Intel Socket 1700 for the Processor 300.

Cache sizes diverge significantly. The Ultra 7 356H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Processor 300 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 356H's L3 cache is three times larger.

Memory support: the Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth; the Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel and no recorded bandwidth. PCIe: the Ultra 7 356H has 12 Gen 5 CPU lanes, the Processor 300 has 16 Gen 5 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus UHD Graphics 710. Market segments: Mobile versus Desktop. Release dates: 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 7 356H, 2024-01-07 for the Processor 300. The Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82; the Ultra 7 356H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are in active production.