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 X7 358H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,370PassMark multi-core score:33540N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2540TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 9 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 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 92% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

15%

8.3

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 92% 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%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

▼Worse than 98%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

6.2

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 82%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
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
▲ Better than 88% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▲Better than 88%
?

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
8.3

List score

List score
8.3/ 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 (2)
List score: in 2 of 22 lists (9%)
★Better than 93%
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £2,370
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 X7 358H

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

6.2

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.5

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
8.3
User score
?
List score
8.3
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%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

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
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
PassMark multi-core score
33,540
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 33,540 in PassMark, which is higher than 89% 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
?
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
LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
9,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 9,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-7200 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 53.4% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc B390
Integrated GPU execution units
96
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 96 GPU execution units, which is more than 94.8% of processors and equal to 4.1% 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), H.266 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Show more
What reviewers say
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
What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra X7 358H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.92x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (33,540 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    33,540 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
  • 58.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,057 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,057 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (9600 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    9,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 3.28x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    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
    ▲ Better than 88% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • 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.
  • 2.92x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (33,540 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    33,540 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
  • 58.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,057 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,057 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 3x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (9600 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    9,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 3.28x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 50% more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • 4x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (96 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    96 vs 24
  • 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), H.266 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) 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), H.266 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 9.48x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is more expensive than the average processor (£2,370 vs £250).
    £2,370 vs £250
  • 9.48x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is more expensive than the average processor (£2,370 vs £250).
    £2,370 vs £250
  • 24.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has worse value for money than the average processor (5.88 vs 7.3).
    5.88 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
  • 99.9% 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.
    0.004 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), H.266 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) 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), H.266 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) 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 Arc B390 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc B390 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

8.0
Kadek Gadget
≈ estimated
05/08/2026
Gaming test · 1080p frame rates across many games
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra X7 358H delivers solid 1080p gaming for integrated graphics, though it is not the fastest, and performance holds on battery.
9.0
Dove Computer Solutions Ltd
≈ estimated
28/05/2026
Full review · three weeks of daily use
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a polished professional ultrabook with top-tier build, and we strongly recommend it.
9.0
Dove Computer Solutions Ltd
≈ estimated
28/05/2026
Full review · three weeks of daily use
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a premium, consistent ultrabook with strong performance and battery life, though pricey and noisy under load.
9.0
NL Tech
≈ estimated
20/05/2026
Hands-on review · benchmarks, battery and power tests
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H offers large performance gains and much better battery life than its predecessor.
9.5
Tech Guy Beau
≈ estimated
02/04/2026
Deep dive review · battery, gaming, video editing and benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is a strong laptop with solid Intel performance; only the screen choice is a real drawback.
8.0
Mash IT
≈ estimated
09/06/2026
First impressions · unboxing and early benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is an upgradeable laptop with good performance, but it is very expensive for what it offers.
Not graded
Not graded

What reviewers agree on

Based on 2 · 6

Reviewers agree on solid build quality and good efficiency, while opinions on graphics performance are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
13/02/2026
Hands-on test · Flip laptop
Verdict
The MSI Prestige 14 Flip AI+ offers large Arc B390 graphics in a 1.37 kg frame, but its dim screen limits it to indoor use.
9.6
pronetic.geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
27/01/2026
Hands-on test · Premium ultrabook
Verdict
The ASUS ExpertBook Ultra is a light 0.99 kg 14-inch laptop with a bright 120Hz OLED and fingerprint-resistant body, but its keyboard travel is short.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

  • 96 integrated graphics units handle light gaming without a separate card.
  • Memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s helps the built-in graphics.
  • Up to 96 GB of memory covers heavy projects.
  • Sixteen cores boost to 4.8 GHz for quick bursts of speed.
  • The 2 nm process helps keep power use in check.
  • Big.LITTLE design sends light tasks to smaller cores.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra X7 358H

  • Multithreading is missing, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • Graphics share system memory, so heavy games compete with the rest of the system.
  • Only 12 PCIe lanes limit how many fast drives and devices can connect.
  • Boost power of 80 W needs solid cooling under load.
  • Base clocks of 1.9 GHz and 1.5 GHz mean less speed during steady heavy work.

Verdict

Decent graphics without a separate card are the point of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H for many laptop buyers. Its 96 integrated graphics units make light gaming and photo editing practical. Sixteen cores boost to 4.8 GHz, and the 2 nm process helps keep power use in check. Four performance cores take demanding jobs, while smaller cores handle background tasks. Its LPDDR5X memory runs at 9600 MHz and reaches 153.6 GB/s, which matters for integrated graphics because they share system memory. Where it falls short, base clocks sit at 1.9 GHz and 1.5 GHz, and there is no multithreading, so each core handles one thread. It suits someone who wants one chip for everyday work and light gaming and does not need heavy multithreaded performance.

Compare Intel Core Ultra X7 358H 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 X7 358H and other processors

No results found