OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 356H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,690PassMark multi-core score:34423N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2540TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 87% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

15%

8.2

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▲Better than 87% of processors
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.6

Price

▼Worse than 98%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 88% of models
Score components

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

6.5

Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 88%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
No expert tests yet
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
8.2

List score

List score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 21 lists (5%)
▲Better than 88%
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £1,690
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 88% of models
Score components:

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

6.5

Architecture

10%

8.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
7.2
User score
?
List score
8.2
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.6

Price

5.9
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2540
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
PassMark multi-core score
34,423
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 34,423 in PassMark, which is higher than 90% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
2 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 2 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 18A
L3 cache
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,533 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Xe3 Graphics 32EU
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode)
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
80 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 80 W which is higher than that of 54.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 7 356H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,000 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,000 vs 5,209
  • 3x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (34,423 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    34,423 vs 11,469
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 59.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,081 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,081 vs 2,558
  • 76.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,710 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,710 vs 1,535
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (34,423 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    34,423 vs 11,469
  • 2.88x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (15,000 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    15,000 vs 5,209
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 59.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,081 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,081 vs 2,558
  • 76.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,710 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,710 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 83.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (2 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    2 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 35.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (114 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    114 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 2.67x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8533 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.46x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.9 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.9 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 39.2% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.125 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA2540 vs FP5).
    FCBGA2540 vs FP5
  • 6.76x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is more expensive than the average processor (£1,690 vs £250).
    £1,690 vs £250
  • 6.76x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is more expensive than the average processor (£1,690 vs £250).
    £1,690 vs £250
  • 23.2% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has worse value for money than the average processor (5.95 vs 7.3).
    5.95 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA2540 vs FP5).
    FCBGA2540 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.9 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.9 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 39.2% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.125 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 99.8% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (0 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    0.012 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 18A vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 18A vs Intel 14 nm
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe3 Graphics 32EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Xe3 Graphics 32EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 25% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (80 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    80 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

  • A multi-core score of 15000 in Geekbench 6 makes quick work of heavy jobs.
  • 16 MB of L2 cache keeps frequently used data close to the cores.
  • 20 PCIe lanes allow several fast drives and devices at once.
  • Up to 128 GB of memory suits large projects and heavy multitasking.
  • Four performance cores take the hardest work.
  • Big.LITTLE design runs light tasks on efficiency cores to save power.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

  • Multithreading is missing, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • Apps that lean on a single core get less out of this chip.
  • Memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s can slow graphics-heavy work.
  • Boost power reaches 80 W, which needs a laptop with solid cooling.

Verdict

Video editing, code builds and other jobs that use many cores at once are where the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does its heaviest lifting, backed by a Geekbench 6 multi-core score of 15000. Sixteen cores run at up to 4.7 GHz, with four performance cores taking the hardest work and smaller cores handling the rest. The 16 MB of L2 cache keeps frequently used data close to the cores. Its single-core score of 2710 in Geekbench 6 covers everyday apps well, and memory can reach 128 GB at 8533 MHz. Where it falls short, the chip has no multithreading, so each core runs one thread at a time. It suits a buyer who runs multi-core work such as 3D rendering or large batch exports and does not need the fastest single-core speed.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and other processors

No results found