Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs Intel Processor 300T Comparison

# Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs Intel Processor 300T

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and the Intel Processor 300T occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Ultra X7 358H is a 16-core mobile processor built on a 3 nm node for Panther Lake-H platforms, while the 300T is a 2-core desktop part based on the older 10 nm Raptor Lake architecture. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gulf, with the Ultra X7 358H delivering an average benchmark score of 40967 against a database average of 0 for the 300T, reflecting the latter's absence of recorded benchmark entries.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its 16 cores and 16 threads allow it to dominate heavily threaded workloads such as multi-core rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18747 demonstrates substantial parallel processing capability, while the PassMark multithread score of 33802 reinforces this strength. The data compression score of 332508 and integer math score of 83147 show strong throughput for data-heavy tasks, and the floating point math score of 103842 indicates solid numerical processing power.

The Intel Processor 300T, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its wins cannot be quantified in any workload category. However, its specifications suggest where it might hold a niche advantage. The 300T uses a 35 W TDP compared to the 25 W TDP of the Ultra X7 358H, meaning the desktop part draws more power at idle or under load. The 300T also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, versus 4 lanes on the Ultra X7 358H, which could matter for systems requiring more high-bandwidth expansion slots. The 300T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, giving the desktop part flexibility for older memory modules.

Single-threaded performance is the only area where the 300T's clock speed could theoretically compete. The 300T has a base clock of 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed, while the Ultra X7 358H has a 1.90 GHz base and a 4.80 GHz boost. The Ultra X7 358H's PassMark single-thread score of 4124 shows strong per-core performance, but the 300T's higher base clock might allow it to match or exceed that in lightly threaded tasks. Without benchmark data for the 300T, this remains speculative.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's foundry. This is a mobile-focused design with a 25 W TDP and an Intel BGA 2540 socket, indicating it is soldered to the motherboard rather than user-replaceable. The 300T uses the Raptor Lake codename with Raptor Lake-S architecture, built on a 10 nm process node, also by Intel. It is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP and an Intel Socket 1700, which allows for socketed installation and upgrade.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The 300T supports hyperthreading, doubling its thread count, whereas the Ultra X7 358H uses a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. Cache hierarchies also diverge significantly. The Ultra X7 358H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and an 18 MB shared L3 cache. The 300T offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 358H's larger caches, especially the shared L3, provide substantial benefits for workloads with large working sets.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth rating of 153.6 GB/s. The 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory but has no bandwidth figure recorded. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics also differ, with the Ultra X7 358H featuring an Arc B390 GPU, while the 300T uses UHD Graphics 710, a more basic integrated solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and the Intel Processor 300T, as the 300T has zero recorded benchmark entries. Consequently, the analysis must rely on the Ultra X7 358H's absolute scores and its performance relative to other processors in its own tier.

The Ultra X7 358H's average benchmark score of 40967 places it in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, which averages 41208, a difference of -0.6%, meaning the Ultra X7 358H trails that AMD part by a negligible margin. Against the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, also at 41208, the delta is -0.6%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41263, a -0.7% gap, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G scores 40718, with the Ultra X7 358H ahead by 0.6%.

In specific workloads, the Ultra X7 358H shows clear strengths. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18747 is roughly 55% higher than its R20 multicore score of 12011, reflecting how the newer benchmark scales with thread count. The R15 multicore score of 3027 is notably lower, but that older benchmark is less demanding. Single-core scores follow a similar pattern: R23 single-core at 2080, R20 at 1695, and R15 at 301.5.

The PassMark suite reveals balanced performance across different instruction types. The data compression score of 332508 is the highest among the PassMark tests, while data encryption scores 26046 and extended instructions score 27274. The find prime numbers test scores 337, which is a lower absolute number but reflects the nature of that workload. Floating point math scores 103842, integer math scores 83147, and random string sorting scores 40357. The physics test scores 3021, and multithread performance scores 33802.

Because the 300T has no benchmarks, the only quantifiable comparison comes from the specification sheet. The 300T's 3.40 GHz base clock exceeds the Ultra X7 358H's 1.90 GHz base clock, but the Ultra X7 358H's 4.80 GHz boost clock is significantly higher than the 300T's lack of a listed boost. The 300T's 163 mm² die size is recorded, while the Ultra X7 358H has no die size listed, indicating a potentially larger or more complex die given its 16-core configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Processor 300T ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Processor 300T have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database lists no benchmark entries for the Intel Processor 300T, giving it an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory. The Intel Processor 300T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses an Arc B390 integrated GPU, while the Intel Processor 300T uses UHD Graphics 710.

Q: What sockets do the two processors use?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile socket. The Intel Processor 300T uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket that allows for replacement.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, whereas the Intel Processor 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ substantially, with the Ultra X7 358H at 1.90 GHz and the 300T at 3.40 GHz. The Ultra X7 358H lists a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the 300T has no boost clock recorded.

Thermal design power also separates them: the Ultra X7 358H has a 25 W TDP, and the 300T has a 35 W TDP. The sockets are incompatible, with the Ultra X7 358H using Intel BGA 2540 and the 300T using Intel Socket 1700. Process nodes differ, with the Ultra X7 358H built on 3 nm and the 300T on 10 nm. The 300T has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Ultra X7 358H has no die size listed.

Cache configurations are markedly different. The Ultra X7 358H offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The 300T provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support diverges, with the Ultra X7 358H using LPDDR5X and the 300T supporting DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is listed only for the Ultra X7 358H at 153.6 GB/s. PCIe lane counts differ, with the Ultra X7 358H providing 4 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU and the 300T offering 16 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics are distinct, and the market segments differ, with the Ultra X7 358H as a mobile part and the 300T as a desktop part. The 300T has a launch MSRP of $82.