Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs Intel Xeon 6357P Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H and Intel Xeon 6357P are both active Intel parts, but they target radically different segments: a 25 W mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 versus an 80 W server/workstation chip on Intel Socket 1700. The benchmark data shows a clear split—the Ultra X7 358H wins 10 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon 6357P takes 7, yet the Xeon’s victories are often decisive in single-threaded and certain multi-threaded workloads. Both processors land at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 40967 for the Ultra X7 358H and 40630 for the Xeon 6357P, making them near-peers in overall output despite their divergent designs.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra X7 358H is the clear winner in floating-point and encryption-heavy tasks. Its 103842 score in PassMark floating point math beats the Xeon’s 74460 by 39.5%, and its PassMark data encryption result of 26046 is 42.1% ahead of the Xeon’s 18324. The mobile chip also dominates prime number finding with a 126.2% advantage (337 vs 149), and it leads in physics simulation (3021 vs 2305, a 31.1% gap) plus extended instructions (27274 vs 24490, an 11.4% edge). These wins point to a processor that excels in scientific computing, cryptography, and simulation workloads where parallel floating-point throughput matters more than raw clock speed.

The Xeon 6357P, by contrast, is the single-thread king. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3691 crushes the Ultra X7 358H’s 2080 by 43.6%, and it leads R15 single-core by 19% (372 vs 301.5). The Xeon also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core decisively at 26145 versus 18747, a 28.3% margin, despite having half the cores (8 vs 16). Its PassMark integer math result of 97375 outpaces the Ultra X7 358H’s 83147 by 14.6%, and it edges ahead in data compression (353521 vs 332508, a 5.9% lead) and single-thread PassMark (4233 vs 4124, a 2.6% margin). This is a chip built for lightly-threaded responsiveness, integer-heavy code, and workloads that scale on fewer, faster cores.

For multi-threaded Cinebench, the picture is mixed: the Ultra X7 358H wins R15 multi-core by 14.9% (3027 vs 2635) and R20 multi-core by 9.4% (12011 vs 10980), but loses R23 multi-core by 28.3%. The PassMark multithread test goes to the Ultra X7 358H at 33802 versus 30759, a 9.9% advantage. The data suggests the Ultra X7 358H handles moderate multi-threaded loads better, while the Xeon’s higher boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.80 GHz) gives it an edge in longer sustained multi-core renders.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel fabrication nodes and design philosophies. The Ultra X7 358H is built on a 3 nm process at Intel’s foundry, using the Panther Lake codename from the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. It packs 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost of 4.80 GHz. The Xeon 6357P uses a 10 nm process (Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-R) with a die size of 257 mm², and it offers only 8 cores but 16 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading—the Ultra X7 358H has no thread-doubling, hence 16 threads from 16 cores.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Ultra X7 358H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 6357P has smaller per-core caches—80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2—but a larger 24 MB shared L3. This means the Xeon has more total L3 for its 8 cores, which helps with single-threaded data locality, while the Ultra X7 358H’s larger per-core L2 (3 MB vs 2 MB) benefits its 16-core layout.

Memory support also splits them. The Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, but lacks ECC support. The Xeon 6357P supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but has no listed bandwidth figure; it does support ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability. The Ultra X7 358H integrates Arc B390 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics (N/A). PCIe lanes differ too: the Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes, whereas the Xeon 6357P provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes—a major expansion advantage for the workstation part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores, and does that translate to more threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6357P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon reaches equal thread counts through simultaneous multi-threading, but the Ultra X7 358H’s 16 physical cores give it a 9.9% lead in PassMark multithread (33802 vs 30759).

Q: Why does the Xeon 6357P win Cinebench R23 multi-core despite having fewer cores?

A: The Xeon 6357P scores 26145 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 18747 for the Ultra X7 358H, a 28.3% margin. Its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz (vs 4.80 GHz) and larger 24 MB shared L3 cache allow its 8 cores to sustain higher per-core performance, which outweighs the Ultra X7 358H’s core count advantage in this specific workload.

Q: Is the Ultra X7 358H better for encryption workloads?

A: Yes, the data shows a decisive 42.1% advantage for the Ultra X7 358H in PassMark data encryption (26046 vs 18324). This is one of the largest margins in the head-to-head results, indicating stronger cryptographic instruction throughput.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two processors?

A: The Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, but no ECC support. The Xeon 6357P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, has no listed bandwidth figure, and includes ECC memory support—a key feature for server deployments.

Q: Which chip offers more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon 6357P provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU-only lanes. This makes the Xeon significantly more suitable for workstation configurations needing multiple expansion cards or NVMe drives.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ultra X7 358H includes Intel Arc B390 integrated graphics, while the Xeon 6357P has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This means the Xeon requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H | Intel Xeon 6357P |

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

| Cores | 16 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 80 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Codename | Panther Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Die Size | Not listed | 257 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc B390 | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2026-01-04 | 2025-02-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $556 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Ultra X7 358H comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 337 versus the Xeon’s 149—a 126.2% advantage that reflects its superior integer and floating-point pipeline efficiency per watt. PassMark data encryption tells a similar story: 26046 vs 18324, a 42.1% lead. The Ultra X7 358H also dominates floating-point math (103842 vs 74460, +39.5%) and physics (3021 vs 2305, +31.1%), plus extended instructions (27274 vs 24490, +11.4%) and random string sorting (40357 vs 35495, +13.7%). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it wins 3027 to 2635 (+14.9%), and in R20 multi-core it takes 12011 to 10980 (+9.4%). The PassMark multithread result confirms the trend: 33802 vs 30759, a 9.9% victory.

The Xeon 6357P’s most crushing win is Cinebench R23 single-core, where its 3691 score demolishes the Ultra X7 358H’s 2080 by 43.6%. It also wins R23 multi-core at 26145 vs 18747 (+28.3% from the Xeon’s perspective), and R15 single-core at 372 vs 301.5 (+19%). In PassMark integer math, the Xeon takes 97375 vs 83147, a 14.6% edge. Data compression goes to the Xeon at 353521 vs 332508 (+5.9%), and PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 2.6% lead (4233 vs 4124). The Xeon’s higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 1.90 GHz) and boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.80 GHz) underpin these single-threaded wins.

The overall scoreboard favors the Ultra X7 358H at 10 wins to 7, and its average benchmark score of 40967 slightly exceeds the Xeon’s 40630. However, the Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core 5 223PE and Core 7 253PE, with delta percentages of 0.1% and 0.2% respectively, while the Ultra X7 358H sits within 0.6-0.7% of several AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO parts and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H/366H. Both CPUs occupy the same performance tier, but the Xeon’s 5.40 GHz boost makes it the choice for latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, while the Ultra X7 358H’s 16 cores and 3 nm process deliver superior throughput in parallel floating-point and encryption workloads.