Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single contest. The Intel Core 5 220H does not claim a single victory in any measured workload, which makes the performance gap between these two mobile processors both wide and consistent.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core testing. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020, while the Core 5 220H manages 1853. That is a delta of 53.9% in favor of the newer chip. The margin is even larger in the multi-core variant of the same test: the Ultra 7 scores 28477 against 11198, a 60.7% advantage. These two results frame the overall relationship: the Ultra 7 leads in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads.

Cinebench R15 and R20 results follow the same pattern. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 posts 2870 versus 1835, a 36.1% lead. Single-core in R15 shows 405 against 262, a 35.3% edge. R20 multi-core delivers 11960 versus 7812 (34.7% ahead), and R20 single-core shows 1688 versus 1102, again 34.7% ahead. The consistency of the delta across different Cinebench versions suggests the performance advantage is not tied to a specific workload generation but is structural.

PassMark results reinforce the trend with varying magnitudes. The smallest advantage is in integer math, where the Ultra 7 scores 83695 versus 73555, a 12.1% lead. Single-thread performance in PassMark shows 4043 versus 3405, a 15.8% gap. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 by 24.3% (327455 versus 247921), and random string sorting shows a 28.6% edge (39814 versus 28438). Multithreaded PassMark lands at 33429 versus 21884, a 34.5% difference.

The most dramatic deltas appear in specialized math workloads. Floating point math shows the Ultra 7 at 103615 against 51671, a 50.1% advantage. Extended instructions score 26901 versus 14642, a 45.6% lead. Data encryption favors the Ultra 7 by 41.1% (25845 versus 15216). Physics simulation shows 2880 versus 1478, a 48.7% gap. The single largest delta is in prime number finding: the Ultra 7 scores 326, the Core 5 scores 82, a 74.8% difference. That workload appears to be highly sensitive to the architectural changes between the two chips.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and process nodes. The Core 5 220H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, using a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake, specifically Panther Lake-H, on a 3 nm node. The shift from 10 nm to 3 nm is a major generational jump and likely explains much of the performance delta, especially in power-sensitive mobile workloads.

Core counts differ as well. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both support 16 threads, but the Ultra 7 reaches that thread count with more physical cores, which suggests a different core topology. The Ultra 7 does not rely on hyper-threading to reach 16 threads, while the Core 5 does. This structural difference matters for workloads that scale with physical cores rather than logical threads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and the same 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 7 likely contribute to its strong single-thread performance, particularly in latency-sensitive tasks like prime number finding and single-core Cinebench runs.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, and the database records a memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 7. No comparable bandwidth number is recorded for the Core 5. The absence of DDR4 support on the Ultra 7 indicates a move to newer memory standards only.

PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes. The extra 4 lanes on the Ultra 7 give it more headroom for high-bandwidth peripherals such as discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

Integrated graphics change generation as well. The Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not list an EU count for the Xe3 part, but the generation jump from Xe to Xe3 suggests a significant graphics architecture overhaul.

Clock speeds present an interesting nuance. The Core 5 220H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 7 wins every benchmark despite a lower base clock and a slightly lower peak boost. This indicates that the 3 nm process and newer architecture deliver more instructions per clock, rather than relying on raw frequency.

Thermal design power also differs considerably. The Core 5 220H is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is rated at 25 W. The Ultra 7 delivers substantially higher performance while consuming a lower TDP envelope. That efficiency gap is a direct consequence of the process node shrink and architectural improvements.

Sockets differ as well. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable platforms. The release dates reflect the generational gap: the Core 5 launched on December 17, 2024, and the Core Ultra 7 launched on January 4, 2026. The Core 5 has a recorded launch MSRP of $342; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 is 0.10 GHz higher in peak frequency.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 366H support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X only. The Core 5 220H supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both expose 16 threads, but the Ultra 7 does so with more physical cores.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: Both processors have 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The differences appear in L1 and L2: the Core 5 has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, while the Ultra 7 has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28574, placing it in the 80th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Core 5 220H has a TDP of 45 W. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 W. The Ultra 7 delivers higher performance at a lower rated power draw.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 5 220H | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | 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) |

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

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

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

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

| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | Not recorded |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every recorded benchmark category. There is no workload in the database where the Core 5 220H takes the lead. The closest contest is PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 7 leads by only 12.1%. That remains a clear win, but it is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Integer math is a common general-purpose workload, and the relatively small gap there suggests the Core 5 is least disadvantaged in basic arithmetic operations.

The Core Ultra 7 366H shows its largest advantages in prime number finding (74.8% ahead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (60.7% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core (53.9% ahead). These are workloads that stress both raw throughput and per-core efficiency. Floating point math (50.1%), physics (48.7%), and extended instructions (45.6%) also show massive gaps. The Ultra 7 is particularly strong in workloads that benefit from the larger L1 and L2 caches, the newer 3 nm process, and the higher physical core count.

The Core 5 220H does have some attributes that favor certain use cases, even if benchmark scores do not reflect them. Its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz could theoretically benefit lightly threaded legacy applications that are frequency-bound, but the recorded single-thread benchmarks do not show any such advantage. The Core 5 also supports DDR4 memory, which could matter for platforms with existing DDR4 infrastructure, but the database does not include memory-dependent benchmark comparisons. Its 45 W TDP and larger thermal budget might suit thicker laptops with better cooling, but the recorded data shows the 25 W Ultra 7 outperforming it across the board.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Intel Core 5 220H in every single benchmark in the database. The average benchmark score of 41263 for the Ultra 7 versus 28574 for the Core 5 represents a substantial overall performance gap, and the percentile ranking confirms it: 87th percentile versus 80th percentile among all CPUs.

The Core Ultra 7 366H delivers this performance at a lower TDP (25 W versus 45 W), on a newer 3 nm process, with a newer architecture (Panther Lake versus Raptor Lake), more physical cores (16 versus 12), larger per-core caches, a higher memory bandwidth figure (115.2 GB/s recorded versus none for the Core 5), and more PCIe lanes (12 versus 8). The Core 5 220H retains advantages in base clock (2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz), boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz), DDR4 memory support, and an earlier release date. It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $342, while no launch MSRP exists for the Ultra 7 in the database.

For any workload captured in the benchmark suite, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the stronger processor. The largest deltas are in multi-core rendering, floating point math, and prime number finding, while the smallest delta is in integer math. The Core 5 220H finds no benchmark where it wins. Users choosing between these two mobile processors should base their decision on the data: the Ultra 7 leads in every measured category, and it does so at a lower TDP. The only recorded advantages for the Core 5 are its higher clock speeds, which do not translate into any benchmark victory, and its support for DDR4 memory, which is not reflected in any performance metric in the database.