Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel Processor 300 is a desktop part aimed at basic computing tasks. The benchmark data available in the database covers only the Core Ultra X7 358H; the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores, wins, or head-to-head comparisons. This means the performance picture is one-sided, but the architectural and specification differences still define clear use-case separation.

The Core Ultra X7 358H delivers strong multi-core and single-core results across Cinebench and PassMark tests. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18747 and single-core score of 2080 place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Processor 300, with only 2 cores and 4 threads, sits at the 50th percentile with no benchmark scores recorded, which indicates a much lower performance ceiling. For users running rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores, the Core Ultra X7 358H is the only option with measurable data to support it.

The Intel Processor 300, by contrast, operates in a different segment entirely. As a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1700 with a 46 W TDP, it targets systems where power draw is less constrained and where the platform offers more PCIe lanes. Its boost clock is not recorded, but its base clock of 3.90 GHz is high relative to the Core Ultra X7 358H's 1.90 GHz base. For lightly threaded tasks that depend on raw clock speed at a given moment, the Intel Processor 300 may hold an advantage, but the database contains no benchmark results to confirm this.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families and manufacturing nodes. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, on a 10 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: the 3 nm node allows for significantly more transistors in a similar area, enabling the 16-core configuration of the Core Ultra X7 358H against the 2-core layout of the Intel Processor 300.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 358H also reports a die size of null in the database, while the Intel Processor 300 has a recorded die size of 163 mm². The larger cache pool on the Core Ultra X7 358H supports its higher thread count and helps feed its 16 cores during parallel workloads.

Memory support also differs. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. The Core Ultra X7 358H is limited to 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Processor 300 offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, giving the desktop part a clear advantage for expansion, particularly for discrete GPUs or multiple NVMe drives.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra X7 358H carries Arc B390 graphics, while the Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The Arc B390 is a more capable integrated solution, which suits the mobile segment where discrete graphics are not always present. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H is built on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel Processor 300 is built on Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode. The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra X7 358H's base clock of 1.90 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded boost clock.

Q: Are there benchmark scores available for the Intel Processor 300?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel Processor 300. The Core Ultra X7 358H has extensive scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H | Intel Processor 300 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 2 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | Not recorded |

| TDP | 25 W | 46 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Panther Lake | Raptor Lake-S |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc B390 | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-01-04 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $82 |

| Part Number | SA4RAQ9ET | SRN3J |

The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, a mobile package, while the Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop boards. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a lower TDP of 25 W despite having 8 times the core count, which reflects the efficiency of the 3 nm node. The Intel Processor 300 draws 46 W with only 2 cores, a consequence of its older 10 nm process and higher base clock.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the Core Ultra X7 358H and the Intel Processor 300. The wins counter shows 0 for both processors, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This is consistent with the Intel Processor 300 having no benchmark scores at all in the database.

For the Core Ultra X7 358H, the available scores paint a clear picture of its capabilities. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18747 in multi-core and 2080 in single-core. Its Cinebench R20 scores are 12011 multi-core and 1695 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 3027 multi-core and 301.5 single-core. These results place it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 40967.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra X7 358H include a multi-thread score of 33802, a single-thread score of 4124, integer math at 83147, floating point math at 103842, extended instructions at 27274, data compression at 332508, data encryption at 26046, find prime numbers at 337, random string sorting at 40357, and physics at 3021. These scores indicate strong performance in both integer and floating point workloads, which supports its use in content creation and scientific computing tasks.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra X7 358H, based on average benchmark score, are all close competitors. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has an average score of 41208, which is 0.6% lower than the Core Ultra X7 358H's 40967. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215, also 0.6% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G scores 40718, which is 0.6% higher than the Core Ultra X7 358H. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41263, 0.7% lower. These deltas show that the Core Ultra X7 358H sits in a tightly contested performance band among mobile processors, within a percentage point of its closest competitors in either direction.

# The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the processor to select for mobile systems that need high multi-threaded throughput. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, combined with its 87th percentile ranking and extensive benchmark scores, make it suitable for rendering, encoding, and parallel computation. Its 25 W TDP also makes it viable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited.

The Intel Processor 300 is a desktop part with a different purpose. Its 2 cores and 4 threads, 6 MB of L3 cache, and 46 W TDP place it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which is useful for budget desktop builds with discrete graphics or storage expansion. Its base clock of 3.90 GHz is high, which could benefit latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, but no benchmark data exists in the database to quantify this advantage.

The absence of benchmark scores for the Intel Processor 300 means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance. Buyers who need measured performance should rely on the Core Ultra X7 358H, which has a complete benchmark profile. Buyers who need a low-cost desktop processor with expansion capability, as indicated by its 16 PCIe lanes and Socket 1700 platform, may consider the Intel Processor 300, but they should be aware that its performance is unverified in the database. The Core Ultra X7 358H, with its launch MSRP not recorded, and the Intel Processor 300, with a launch MSRP of $82, serve fundamentally different markets. The data does not support a single winner, only a choice based on platform and workload requirements.