- 0-20%: Unlikely - Lacks credible sources
- 21-40%: Questionable - Some concerns remain
- 41-60%: Plausible - Reasonable evidence
- 61-80%: Probable - Strong evidence
- 81-100%: Highly Likely - Multiple reliable sources
60%
Plausible
Alleged performance of Intel's Panther Lake, Core Ultra X7 358H & Ultra 5 338H CPUs, in Cinebench R23 MT has leaked out.
Intel Panther Lake Might Offer Similar Performance As Arrow Lake In Multi-Threaded Tests If These "Alleged" ES Tests For Core Ultra X7 358H & Ultra 5 338H Are To Be Believed
A few weeks after posting what are seemingly the first non-official benchmarks of Panther Lake's Xe3 iGPU, LaptopReview has now published CPU performance benchmarks for Intel's upcoming CPUs, the Core Ultra X7 358H and the Core Ultra 5 338H.
These two Intel Panther Lake CPUs should be ES parts, considering the previous results were also from an ES sample. As for the specifications, the Core Ultra X7 358H features 4 P-Cores and 12 E-Cores with boost clocks of up to 4.8 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 338H features 4 P-Cores and 8 E-Cores with boost clocks of up to 4.7 GHz. Do note that the clock speeds are preliminary and are based on recent Geekbench leaks.
While the full platform or test setup details weren't mentioned, both Intel Panther Lake CPUs were tested against existing Arrow Lake-H CPUs. The Core Ultra X7 358H was compared against the Core Ultra 7 255H, which rocks 6 P-Cores and 10 E-Cores, while the Core Ultra 5 338H was compared against the Core Ultra 5 225H, which features 4 P-Cores and 10 E-Cores. The Arrow Lake-H CPUs also operate at higher clocks vs the ES Panther Lake chips, at 5.1 GHz and 4.9 GHz, respectively.
- Core Ultra X7 358H: 4 P-Cores + 12 E-Cores @ 4.8 GHz
- Core Ultra 7 255H: 6 P-Cores + 10 E-Cores @ 5.1 GHz
- Core Ultra 5 338H: 4 P-Cores + 8 E-Cores @ 4.7 GHz
- Core Ultra 5 225H: 4 P-Cores + 10 E-Cores @ 4.9 GHz
With that said, let's move on to the performance figures. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H "Panther Lake" CPU is said to score around 20,000 points in the Cinebench R23 Multi-Thread test, whereas the Ultra 7 255H "Arrow Lake" CPU scores around 21,826 points at the same 65W TDP. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a score of 16,000 points at 60W, whereas its predecessor, the Core Ultra 5 225H, scores 17,988 points at a 65W TDP.
Cinebench R23 MT
Based on these numbers, it looks like the final Intel Panther Lake silicon should be on par or a little bit faster than Arrow Lake-H CPUs. The Arrow Lake-H "Core Ultra 7" does have the advantage of more and faster P-Cores, while the Arrow Lake-H "Core Ultra 5" has more E-Cores and a higher clock too. As we've seen in the past, final silicon can dramatically improve performance versus early silicon. Intel itself has also stated that Panther Lake CPUs should be able to provide 30% power savings at the same performance as Arrow Lake-H in multi-threading.
In addition to the CPU performance benchmarks, LaptopReview has also published updated Panther Lake 12Xe iGPU scores in 3DMark Time Spy. According to them, the new numbers are from an optimized CPU that is closer to the retail silicon. Previously, the 12 Xe3 iGPU scored around 6300 points, but the new iGPU numbers show a score of up to 6830 points, and an 8.5% increase. This also puts Xe3 up to 55% faster than the 8Xe2 iGPU on Lunar Lake.
TimeSpy Graphics (Higher is Better)
So, it looks like the Intel Panther Lake CPUs should turn up to be a decent offering for mobility platforms. As always, take these numbers with a grain of salt. Intel is expected to release its first Panther Lake SKU in this quarter, with more SKUs and an official launch slated for CES 2026 in January.
Intel Panther Lake-H and U lineup (Preliminary)
| CPU Model | P-Cores (Cougar Cove) | E-Cores (Darkmont) | LP-E Cores (Skymont) | CPU Clocks (Max) | Xe3 iGPU Cores | iGPU Clock | TDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra X9 388H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5.1 GHz | 12 (B390) | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra X9 386H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4.9 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra X7 368H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5.0 GHz | 12 (B390) | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra X7 366H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4.8 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra X7 358H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4.8 GHz | 12 (B390) | 2500 MHz | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra X7 356H | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4.7 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 338H | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.7 GHz | 10 (B370) | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 336H | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.6 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (65-80W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 7 365 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4.8 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 7 355 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4.7 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 335 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4.6 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 325 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4.5 GHz | 4 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 332 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4.4 GHz | 2 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
| Core Ultra 5 322 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4.4 GHz | 2 | TBD | 25W (55W Turbo) |
Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.
