Intel Core 5 130HL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H across every benchmark category, though the comparison requires some nuance. The Core Ultra 7 366H holds an average benchmark score of 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and sits at the 50th percentile, meaning no direct head-to-head measurements exist for these two specific processors. However, the available data for the 366H provides a clear picture of its capability.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 366H scores 2,870 points. Its single-core R15 result is 405 points. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score jumps to 11,960, while single-core reaches 1,688. The most demanding rendering workload, Cinebench R23, shows 28,477 multicore and 4,020 single-core. These figures indicate strong scaling from R15 through R23, with the multicore scores improving by roughly 4.2 times from R15 to R23, a typical pattern for a modern processor with efficient thread management.

The PassMark suite adds further detail. The 366H achieves 327,455 in data compression, 25,845 in data encryption, and 26,901 in extended instructions. Integer math reaches 83,695, floating point math hits 103,615, and the find prime numbers test records 326. The multithread score is 33,429, while single-thread performance is 4,043 in both recorded single-thread tests. Random string sorting produces 39,814, and physics simulation scores 2,880.

Relative to its nearest rivals in the database, the 366H performs within a narrow band. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, which averages 41,215. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 sits at 41,208, also 0.1% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41,376, putting the 366H 0.3% behind that desktop part. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H trails by 0.7% with 40,967. These delta percentages confirm that the 366H is tightly grouped with several high-end processors, neither dominating nor being dominated by any single rival.

For the 130HL, the absence of benchmark scores means the database cannot quantify its performance relative to the 366H. What the data does show is that the 130HL belongs to the Raptor Lake architecture, a desktop-oriented design, while the 366H uses Panther Lake, a mobile-focused architecture. The architectural gap alone suggests significant differences in instruction handling and power efficiency, but without scores for the 130HL, any quantitative comparison would be speculative.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share Intel as the manufacturer but diverge substantially in design philosophy. The Intel Core 5 130HL uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It targets the desktop market segment and fits the Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process. It targets the mobile segment and uses Intel BGA 2540, a socket designed for soldered laptop installation.

Core counts differ meaningfully. The 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both processors present equal thread counts despite the core difference, which indicates the 366H likely uses a mix of performance and efficiency cores without hyper-threading on all cores, while the 130HL uses hyper-threading on a portion of its cores. The 366H has a lower base clock at 2.00 GHz compared to 2.60 GHz for the 130HL, yet both boost to 4.80 GHz. This suggests the 366H relies on higher boost behavior and efficiency to compensate for a lower sustained baseline.

Cache hierarchies show notable differences. The 130HL provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H increases L1 to 192 KB per core and L2 to 2.5 MB per core, while keeping the same 18 MB shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches in the 366H indicate a design aimed at reducing memory latency for single-threaded workloads, a common trait in newer architectures. The shared L3 being identical at 18 MB suggests a similar aggregate cache budget, but the per-core differences shift the balance toward the 366H.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 130HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s for the 366H. No bandwidth figure exists for the 130HL. The 366H's inclusion of LPDDR5X indicates a design optimized for mobile power envelopes, while the 130HL's DDR4 compatibility points to a broader compatibility target for desktop systems.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The 130HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The 366H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. The newer generation and higher lane count give the 366H substantially more bandwidth for attached peripherals, a feature particularly relevant for mobile platforms where storage and GPU connectivity matter.

Integrated graphics distinguish the parts. The 130HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The 366H employs Intel Xe3 Graphics, a newer generation. The database does not record execution unit counts for the Xe3, so a direct comparison of graphics compute capacity is not possible from the data. The generation jump, however, suggests architectural improvements in the 366H's integrated solution.

Power and release timing also differ. The 130HL has a TDP of 45 watts and was released in April 2024. The 366H has a TDP of 25 watts and was released in January 2026. The lower TDP for the 366H, combined with its higher core count and newer process node, indicates a significant efficiency improvement. The release date gap of roughly two years also explains the architectural generational leap. The 366H is the newer part by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 5 130HL has 12 cores. Both have 16 threads, so the 366H achieves the same thread count with fewer threads per core.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 130HL has a base clock of 2.60 GHz, and the 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Both processors share the same boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: How does the cache compare?

A: The 130HL has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both have 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The 130HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has better PCIe capabilities?

A: The 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU, while the 130HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The 366H offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The 130HL has a TDP of 45 watts, and the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 366H uses less power despite having more cores, reflecting its newer 3 nm process node.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 130HL | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | April 2024 | January 2026 |

| Part Number | unknown | SA4R9Q9EL |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to a newer generation, uses a smaller process node, delivers more cores, offers larger per-core caches, supports newer memory and PCIe standards, and does so within a lower power envelope. Its benchmark scores, while only recorded for the 366H, place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average score of 41,263. That score sits within 0.7% of four closely matched rivals, confirming the 366H as a competitive performer in its class.

The Intel Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so the database cannot establish its measured performance. Its specifications suggest a capable desktop processor, with 12 cores, 16 threads, a 4.80 GHz boost clock, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 45 watt TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility indicate a traditional desktop design, likely intended for systems where power efficiency is less critical than in mobile platforms.

For a mobile platform requiring strong multi-threaded performance and modern features, the 366H is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 16 cores, 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, Gen 5 PCIe, and 3 nm process represent a substantial architectural advance over the 130HL. The 366H also carries a higher database percentile ranking, at 87 versus 50 for the 130HL, which reflects its standing relative to all other CPUs in the database.

For a desktop system where Socket 1700 compatibility matters, the 130HL has its place. It supports DDR4 memory, which can be an advantage for users with existing DDR4 modules, and its 45 watt TDP is conventional for a desktop part. Its 10 nm process and Raptor Lake architecture are older, but the specifications remain functional for a mid-range desktop build.

The absence of benchmark data for the 130HL prevents a direct performance comparison. The available evidence, however, favors the 366H on nearly every measurable specification. Newer process, more cores, larger caches, faster memory support, more PCIe bandwidth, and a lower TDP all align in the 366H's favor. The release date gap, with the 366H arriving roughly two years later, further explains the architectural superiority. Any user choosing between these two should base the decision on platform requirements, socket compatibility, and memory preferences, since the performance data already points definitively toward the 366H.