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

Intel Core 7 160UL and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H represent two distinct Intel product generations with no overlap in their performance profiles. The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, making it the unequivocal choice for any workload where processing power is the primary consideration. The Core 7 160UL, by contrast, occupies a different role entirely: it is a desktop processor with a 15 W TDP, built on the Raptor Lake architecture, and its benchmark results place it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 366H, a mobile chip with a 25 W TDP on the Panther Lake architecture, sits in the 87th percentile. For users building a compact desktop system where the 160UL's Socket 1700 compatibility and lower power envelope are relevant, it serves a purpose. For anyone prioritizing computational throughput, the 366H delivers roughly three times the multi-threaded performance across every Cinebench and PassMark test in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Intel Core 7 160UL in every single recorded benchmark, 17 wins to zero. The average benchmark score for the 366H is 41263, nearly three times the 160UL's average of 14232. The 366H also holds a higher percentile ranking, 87 compared to 69. The 160UL's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, with an average score of 14277, a delta of -0.3%, and the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185, a delta of 0.3%. The 366H's nearest competitors are substantially faster, including the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376. This placement confirms the 366H is not merely ahead of the 160UL; it competes in a higher performance class entirely. The 160UL should be selected only for desktop systems requiring its specific Socket 1700 form factor and 15 W TDP, while the 366H is the correct choice for any application where the benchmark scores are the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, shares its codename with the architecture, and is built on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process node difference indicates a significant generational leap. The 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 366H does not use simultaneous multithreading, as its thread count equals its core count, whereas the 160UL has two extra threads beyond its core count. The 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 366H has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz but a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Cache configurations also differ substantially. The 160UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its memory bandwidth is not recorded. The 366H uses Intel Socket BGA 2540, while the 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700, making them physically incompatible. The 366H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes, while the 160UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the 160UL has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the 366H has Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent and massive performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 366H scores 2870 against the 160UL's 946, a delta of -67%. The single-core R15 test shows 405 versus 133, a delta of -67.2%. Cinebench R20 multicore results are 11960 versus 3942, a delta of -67%, and single-core R20 is 1688 versus 556, a delta of -67.1%. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 28477 versus 9386, a delta of -67%, while single-core R23 is 4020 versus 1325, also a delta of -67%. These Cinebench results are uniform, with the 366H holding roughly a threefold advantage in multicore and a similar margin in single-core tests.

PassMark results show the same pattern with varying magnitudes. The data compression test shows 327455 for the 366H versus 108953 for the 160UL, a delta of -66.7%. Data encryption shows 25845 versus 7146, a delta of -72.4%. Extended instructions show 26901 versus 5832, a delta of -78.3%. The prime number search test shows 326 versus 50, a delta of -84.7%, the largest percentage gap in the dataset. Floating point math shows 103615 versus 25670, a delta of -75.2%. Integer math shows 83695 versus 47515, a delta of -43.2%, the smallest gap among the PassMark tests. The multithread test shows 33429 versus 11043, a delta of -67%. The physics test shows 2880 versus 819, a delta of -71.6%. Random string sorting shows 39814 versus 11843, a delta of -70.3%. The single-thread test shows 4043 versus 3391, a delta of -16.1%. This single-thread result is the closest margin in the entire comparison, but the 366H still wins. The integer math test, at -43.2%, and the single-thread test, at -16.1%, are the areas where the 160UL comes closest to matching the 366H, though it never surpasses it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The 366H has 6 more cores and 4 more threads than the 160UL.

Q: What is the difference in process node between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL is manufactured on a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is manufactured on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, which is 6 MB more.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 160UL has a higher boost clock by 0.40 GHz.

Q: What memory types are supported by each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The 366H also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263. The Intel Core 7 160UL has an average benchmark score of 14232. The 366H's average score is approximately 2.9 times higher than the 160UL's.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every recorded category. It delivers higher scores in all six Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multicore workloads across R15, R20, and R23 versions. In PassMark tests, it wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number search, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The 366H has no recorded losses. Its largest advantages are in prime number search, where it leads by 84.7%, and extended instructions, where it leads by 78.3%. Its smallest advantage is in the single-thread test, where it leads by 16.1%. The 160UL has zero benchmark wins.

The Intel Core 7 160UL does have distinct features, but they are not reflected in benchmark wins. It is a desktop processor with a 15 W TDP, whereas the 366H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP. The 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a common desktop socket, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile package. The 160UL supports DDR4 memory, which the 366H does not, and it has a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to the 366H's 4.80 GHz. These attributes make the 160UL suited for low-power desktop builds using existing Socket 1700 motherboards. The 366H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes versus the 160UL's PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, and it has a larger L3 cache at 18 MB versus 12 MB. For applications requiring the highest possible throughput, the 366H is the clear winner in every measured workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP is 15 W for the 160UL and 25 W for the 366H. The socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the 160UL and Intel BGA 2540 for the 366H. The architecture is Raptor Lake for the 160UL and Panther Lake for the 366H. The process node is 10 nm for the 160UL and 3 nm for the 366H. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the 160UL and 192 KB per core for the 366H. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core for the 160UL and 2.5 MB per core for the 366H. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared for the 160UL and 18 MB shared for the 366H. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the 160UL, and DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the 366H. The 366H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the 160UL has no recorded memory bandwidth. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the 160UL and Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the 366H. The integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the 160UL and Intel Xe3 Graphics for the 366H. The market segment is Desktop for the 160UL and Mobile for the 366H. The release date is 2024-04-07 for the 160UL and 2026-01-04 for the 366H. The 160UL has a part number of unknown, while the 366H has a part number of SA4R9Q9EL. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers. Neither supports ECC memory.