Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL uses 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has two more physical cores, but the Core 7 160HL supports four additional threads due to Hyper-Threading on certain cores.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL reaches a maximum boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H tops out at 4.80 GHz. The Core 7 160HL holds a 0.40 GHz advantage in peak single-core frequency.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL is built on Intel's 10 nm process node, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process node. The Core Ultra 7 366H is manufactured on a significantly more advanced fabrication process.

Q: How do the L3 cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 160HL provides 6 MB more L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 7 160HL is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth rating for the Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 7 160HL does not have a memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel architectures and target different market segments. The Intel Core 7 160HL is a desktop part based on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor built on Panther Lake architecture, with the Panther Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

The process technology gap is substantial. The Core 7 160HL is fabricated on a 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm node. Both chips are manufactured by Intel, but the 3 nm process allows the Core Ultra 7 366H to pack 16 cores into a 25 W TDP envelope, compared to the 45 W TDP of the 14-core Core 7 160HL.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure and capacity. The Core 7 160HL allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, alongside 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core cache allocations favor the Panther Lake design, while the total L3 capacity favors the Raptor Lake part.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s for this chip. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 7 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ between the two. The Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H across multiple test suites. The Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so all comparisons rely on the Core Ultra 7 366H's absolute performance and its standing against nearest rivals.

The Core Ultra 7 366H achieves a percentile rank of 87 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41,263. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41,376, which is 0.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 366H. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215, putting it 0.1% behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also scores 41,208, trailing by 0.1%. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40,967, which is 0.7% lower.

In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra 7 366H posts a multi-core score of 28,477 and a single-core score of 4,020. The multi-core result places it firmly above the 20,000-point threshold that typically indicates strong workstation-class throughput. The single-core score of 4,020 reflects a capable architecture that handles lightly threaded workloads efficiently.

Cinebench R20 results show a multi-core score of 11,960 and a single-core score of 1,688. The ratio between multi-core and single-core scores in R20 indicates strong scaling across the 16 cores. Cinebench R15 shows a multi-core score of 2,870 and a single-core score of 405.

PassMark tests reveal specific workload strengths. The multi-thread score is 33,429, while the single-thread score is 4,043 (recorded twice as both "single_thread" and "singlethread"). Data compression scores 327,455, which is the highest individual PassMark result for this chip. Data encryption scores 25,845, and extended instructions score 26,901. Floating point math scores 103,615, while integer math scores 83,695. Prime number finding scores 326, physics scores 2,880, and random string sorting scores 39,814.

The gap between the Core Ultra 7 366H and its nearest rivals is small. The largest delta is 0.7% against the Core Ultra X7 358H, and the smallest is 0.1% against both the Core Ultra 7 356H and the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440. The Ryzen 9 5900X leads by just 0.3%. These margins suggest that the Core Ultra 7 366H sits in a dense performance cluster where chip-to-chip differences are minor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields.

Cores and threads: The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Clock speeds: The Core 7 160HL has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

TDP: The Core 7 160HL is rated at 45 W. The Core Ultra 7 366H is rated at 25 W.

Socket: The Core 7 160HL uses Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Process node: The Core 7 160HL uses 10 nm. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses 3 nm.

L1 cache: The Core 7 160HL has 80 KB per core. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB per core.

L2 cache: The Core 7 160HL has 2 MB per core. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 2.5 MB per core.

L3 cache: The Core 7 160HL has 24 MB shared. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB shared.

Memory support: The Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Memory bandwidth: The Core 7 160HL has no recorded bandwidth figure. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 115.2 GB/s.

PCIe: The Core 7 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: The Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Market segment: The Core 7 160HL is a desktop part. The Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile part.

Part number: The Core 7 160HL has an unknown part number. The Core Ultra 7 366H has part number SA4R9Q9EL.

Release date: The Core 7 160HL was released on 2024-04-07. The Core Ultra 7 366H was released on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 160HL wins on raw clock speed and cache capacity. Its boost clock of 5.20 GHz is 0.40 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 7 366H's 4.80 GHz. Its 24 MB of L3 cache is 6 MB larger. For workloads that are sensitive to peak single-core frequency, such as lightly threaded applications, the Core 7 160HL has the advantage. The desktop socket also allows for easier platform integration in fixed systems.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins on core count, process efficiency, and platform features. It has 16 cores versus 14, and its 3 nm process node allows a 25 W TDP compared to 45 W. The memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes, and LPDDR5X support give it a more modern platform foundation. Its benchmark results place it at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with strong multi-core scores in Cinebench R23 (28,477) and PassMark multi-thread (33,429). The data compression score of 327,455 indicates particular strength in compression workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 366H is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark data. Its nearest rival comparisons show it trading blows with the Ryzen 9 5900X (0.3% behind), the Core Ultra 7 356H (0.1% ahead), the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.1% ahead), and the Core Ultra X7 358H (0.7% ahead). These results demonstrate that the Core Ultra 7 366H competes effectively with established high-performance desktop chips despite its mobile form factor and lower TDP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H in measured performance. It holds an 87th percentile rank among all CPUs and delivers strong multi-core results across Cinebench and PassMark suites. Its 16 cores, 3 nm process, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a modern foundation that the Core 7 160HL cannot match architecturally.

The Intel Core 7 160HL offers a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 4.80 GHz) and more L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB), but it has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its 14-core, 20-thread configuration and 45 W TDP indicate a desktop-oriented design, while the Core Ultra 7 366H achieves superior core count and efficiency in a 25 W mobile package.

For users prioritizing measured multi-core throughput, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice. Its nearest rivals include the Ryzen 9 5900X, and it trails that desktop chip by only 0.3% in average score while using substantially less power. For users prioritizing peak clock speed and larger L3 cache, the Core 7 160HL offers those specific advantages, but without benchmark data its overall performance position cannot be confirmed. The data supports selecting the Core Ultra 7 366H for general compute workloads, particularly those that scale across cores.