Intel Core Ultra X7 368H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor 300 occupy completely different segments of the processor market, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a 16-core mobile processor built on the Panther Lake architecture, while the Intel Processor 300 is a 2-core desktop chip based on Raptor Lake. The performance gap between them is not subtle; it is a chasm.

The Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every measurable benchmark category. It delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 points against the Intel Processor 300's complete absence of recorded benchmark data. The database shows zero benchmark entries for the Intel Processor 300, meaning there are no recorded scores for single-core, multi-core, or any other workload category. This makes a direct head-to-head comparison impossible in quantitative terms. However, the qualitative picture is unambiguous: the Core Ultra X7 368H is designed for demanding multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel Processor 300 targets basic desktop tasks.

Where the Core Ultra X7 368H wins decisively is in productivity and content creation. Its PassMark multi-thread score of 32,956 points, combined with a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 28,221, indicates strong sustained performance across all 16 threads. The data also shows exceptional floating-point capability with a PassMark floating-point math score of 105,681 and integer math at 88,083. These numbers suggest the chip can handle video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computations with ease. The Intel Processor 300, with only 2 cores and 4 threads, cannot compete in these workloads; its architecture simply lacks the parallel resources.

The Core Ultra X7 368H also wins in single-threaded performance, though the margin is less extreme. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 points and PassMark single-thread score of 4,005 indicate strong per-core efficiency. The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded single-thread scores in the database, so a precise comparison is unavailable, but the Core Ultra X7's boost clock of 5.00 GHz suggests it can match or exceed the Intel Processor 300's 3.90 GHz base clock in lightly threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in process technology between the two chips?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory types?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the database lists no memory bandwidth figure for it.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts, indicating a power-efficient mobile design. The Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts, which is higher despite having far fewer cores.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor include?

A: The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 graphics, while the Intel Processor 300 includes UHD Graphics 710.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database is empty. There are no recorded comparative scores between the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor 300. The Intel Processor 300 has zero benchmark entries across all test categories, and the headToHeadBenchmarks field contains no data. This means the database cannot provide direct numerical comparisons such as "the Core Ultra X7 scores X% higher in Cinebench R23 multi-core."

However, the Core Ultra X7 368H's standalone benchmark results provide a clear performance profile. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2,844 points and single-core score of 401 points show strong baseline performance. The Cinebench R20 results continue this pattern with 11,852 multi-core and 1,673 single-core points. The Cinebench R23 results, at 28,221 multi-core and 3,984 single-core, represent the most modern rendering workload in the dataset.

The PassMark suite adds further detail. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 312,927 in data compression, 25,228 in data encryption, and 25,669 in extended instructions. Its prime number finding score is 321, which is relatively low compared to its other results, suggesting this particular workload does not scale as well with its architecture. The random string sorting score of 38,093 and physics score of 2,857 round out the performance picture.

The Intel Processor 300's lack of benchmark data means the database records zero wins for either processor in head-to-head tests. The winsA and winsB fields both show 0. This is not a tie; it is an absence of comparative data. What the database does show is the Core Ultra X7 368H's percentile ranking: 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,518. The Intel Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, reinforcing that it has no recorded performance data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the Intel Processor 300 uses the Intel Socket 1700. This means they are physically incompatible and target completely different platforms: one is mobile, the other is desktop.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no recorded boost clock. The higher base clock on the Intel Processor 300 reflects its desktop design, where power draw is less constrained, but the Core Ultra X7's boost capability far exceeds it.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X memory, which is typical for mobile platforms. The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving desktop builders flexibility. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra X7 records a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s while the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Processor 300 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This gives the desktop chip far more expansion capability for GPUs and storage devices.

Other differences include the Core Ultra X7 368H's 16 cores versus the Intel Processor 300's 2 cores, and the Core Ultra X7's 18 MB L3 cache versus the Intel Processor 300's 6 MB. The Intel Processor 300 has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Core Ultra X7's die size is not listed. The Intel Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82. The Core Ultra X7 368H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these processors is generational. The Core Ultra X7 368H is built on Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. It uses a 3 nm process node. The Intel Processor 300 uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, on a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process node difference represents a major leap in transistor density and power efficiency.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. The Intel Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra X7's L3 cache is 18 MB shared, triple the Intel Processor 300's 6 MB shared L3.

The Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, which represents Intel's modern graphics architecture. The Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710, a more basic integrated solution. This difference matters for users who rely on integrated graphics for light gaming or media playback.

The production status for both processors is listed as Active, meaning both are currently manufactured. The release dates differ: the Core Ultra X7 368H was released on January 4, 2026, while the Intel Processor 300 was released on January 7, 2024. The Core Ultra X7 is the newer design by roughly two years.

The Core Ultra X7 368H's market segment is Mobile, while the Intel Processor 300 targets Desktop. This explains many of the architectural choices: the mobile chip prioritizes power efficiency with a 25-watt TDP, while the desktop chip draws 46 watts. The Core Ultra X7's part number is SA4R7Q9EJ, and the Intel Processor 300's part number is SRN3J. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data in the database supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H and the Intel Processor 300 serve entirely different purposes, and the performance gap between them is massive. The Core Ultra X7 368H ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,518. The Intel Processor 300 ranks in the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores.

For users who need multi-threaded performance in a mobile form factor, the Core Ultra X7 368H is the only choice between these two. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 25-watt TDP make it suitable for laptops that need to handle rendering, encoding, and other parallel workloads. The PassMark multi-thread score of 32,956 and Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 confirm its capability in these areas. Its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth supports data-intensive applications.

The Intel Processor 300 targets basic desktop computing. Its 2 cores and 4 threads are sufficient for everyday tasks such as web browsing, office applications, and light media consumption. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide expansion options that the mobile chip lacks, and its DDR4/DDR5 memory support offers platform flexibility. Its 3.90 GHz base clock ensures responsive single-threaded performance for typical desktop workloads.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra X7 368H in the database include the Intel Core 7 253PE with an average score of 40,557 (0.1% difference), the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40,585 (0.2% difference), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at 40,431 (0.2% difference), and the Intel Xeon 6507P at 40,426 (0.2% difference). These deltas are all within 0.2% of the Core Ultra X7's score, indicating that it performs in a tightly competitive cluster among its peers. The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded rivals in the database.

The database records no benchmark wins for either processor in head-to-head tests because no comparative tests exist. But the standalone data tells the story: the Core Ultra X7 368H is a high-performance mobile processor, and the Intel Processor 300 is an entry-level desktop chip. Users should select based on platform requirements and workload demands, not on performance parity, because none exists.