As is evident from the most recent benchmarking results, Intel’s two newly released chips now confidently occupy the pinnacle of its product hierarchy in terms of multi-core computational performance. The impressive superiority of the X9 388H is particularly noteworthy—it leads by a commanding and measurable margin. Achieving this kind of advancement, in which a chip manages to exceed the multi-core capabilities of Apple’s latest M5 processor by roughly thirty-three percent, represents an engineering triumph that demands recognition. It is a formidable accomplishment that not only underscores Intel’s technical resurgence but also showcases its ability to recalibrate its innovation strategy after years of fierce market competition. The progress extends beyond central processing power: in the field of integrated graphics, Intel has reclaimed dominance, a position the company had not confidently held for quite some time. Witnessing Intel reestablish itself as a leader in both compute and graphical subsystems feels almost historic—an unequivocal statement that the brand has returned to form.
The Core Ultra 7 258V, mentioned earlier, was tested within the Dell 14 Plus—a notebook whose physical footprint and design ethos are closely comparable to the MSI Prestige 14 Flip. Within this testing framework, the Core Ultra 7 exhibited a truly remarkable leap in processing throughput: a fifty-two percent increase in multi-core CPU capability, paired with an equally striking fifty-four percent enhancement to its integrated GPU performance, as measured in the 3DMark Steel Nomad Light benchmark. These gains, which push the envelope for thin-and-light laptops, also enable the Dell 14 Plus to outperform Apple’s M4 MacBook Air. This benchmark result underscores the degree to which Intel’s latest mobile platform can now challenge—and in specific cases surpass—the efficiency-oriented Apple silicon systems that have recently set the industry standard.
That said, certain limitations remain apparent. Intel’s architecture still lags behind Apple’s in single-core performance, where the improvements in this new generation are relatively modest. The gap reflects Apple’s continuing strength in single-thread optimization and efficiency cores. Moreover, the X9 cannot yet outpace the M4 Pro or M4 Max chips, both of which retain their lead across most metrics. Still, the difference in multi-core performance between the X9 and Apple’s M4 Pro narrows to a mere fourteen percent—a much smaller divide than in previous generations. With Apple’s M5 Pro and M5 Max waiting in the wings, a new round of head-to-head testing will soon be essential to assess whether Intel’s resurgence can be sustained. Personally, I am also eager to evaluate the Core Ultra X7358H in comparison with forthcoming mobile processors, such as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X2 Elite Enhanced, expected to arrive in the next wave of premium ultrabooks. Regrettably, those test units are not yet available for direct hands-on comparison.
The real revelation, however, lies in the graphical performance—particularly when one examines the higher-tier X9 chip. For the first time in a long while, the marketing emphasis conveyed by the “X” designation feels fully justified. Both the X7 and X9 variants integrate the same B390 GPU, a component that sits at the apex of Intel’s integrated graphics architecture, excluding its discrete desktop graphics cards. Each chip configuration includes twelve Xe cores, distinguished only by variations in clock speed—a subtle tuning that affects how aggressively each model can sustain peak rendering workloads. Intel’s official claim suggested that the new Panther Lake graphics subsystem delivers up to seventy-seven percent greater performance than the previous Lunar Lake generation. Although real-world laptop testing did not produce the full extent of that dramatic leap—owing primarily to inconsistencies in cooling, system power limits, and measurement methodologies—the observed improvements are still substantial, even if somewhat less than laboratory projections. Ultimately, precise one-to-one comparisons among mobile devices are inherently complex, since form factors, thermal designs, and firmware optimizations vary widely across manufacturers.
Nevertheless, the data make one conclusion unmistakable: Intel’s progress in integrated graphics represents a transformative step forward. Large benchmark scores on synthetic tests are certainly gratifying, yet the real question lies in the translation of these figures into tangible user experiences—faster rendering, smoother video editing, and quicker AI inferencing in day-to-day laptop use. What carries true importance is how these theoretical advances manifest in actual consumer-grade products.
Understanding what greater performance truly signifies requires distinguishing between mere numerical uplift and practical capability. In a thin-and-light laptop—precisely the segment most limited by thermal and power constraints—stronger integrated graphics can have two major implications. First, it amplifies overall system responsiveness across a spectrum of demanding workloads: video production, 3D rendering, or localized machine learning inference can all benefit from additional GPU horsepower. Tasks that once required moving up to a thicker, more expensive, and power-hungry workstation laptop can now be executed on a more portable platform. This democratization of performance makes high-end computing attainable in highly mobile form factors, reaffirming Intel’s intent to balance efficiency with raw power within the modern ultrabook landscape.
Sourse: https://www.wired.com/story/intel-panther-lake-core-ultra-series-3-review/
