Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Intel Core 7 240H and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H represent two distinct approaches to mobile processing within Intel’s lineup. The data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the Core Ultra 7 366H winning every single benchmark recorded. The Core 7 240H, built on an older architecture, trails significantly across all metrics, while the Core Ultra 7 366H demonstrates a substantial generational leap in both multi-core and single-core workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 7 240H. The largest single-core margin appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 versus 1719 for the Core 7 240H, a delta of -57.2% for the older chip. This is the most dramatic gap in the entire dataset, indicating a massive improvement in single-threaded performance.

Multi-core performance also heavily favors the Core Ultra 7 366H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, while the Core 7 240H manages 15764, a -44.6% delta. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 11960 for the Core Ultra 7 366H versus 8562 for the Core 7 240H, a -28.4% difference. These results indicate that the newer processor is not just faster per core, but also scales better across all cores.

The PassMark suite confirms the trend. The largest percentage difference is in the find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus just 102 for the Core 7 240H, a -68.7% delta. Floating point math also shows a wide gap: 103615 for the Core Ultra 7 366H versus 58905 for the Core 7 240H, a -43.2% difference. Integer math is the closest contest, but the Core Ultra 7 366H still wins with 83695 against 80396, a -3.9% delta.

Other PassMark tests reinforce the dominance. Data encryption sees the Core Ultra 7 366H score 25845 against 15155, a -41.4% delta. Extended instructions show 26901 versus 16897, a -37.2% difference. Physics tests show 2880 versus 1723, a -40.2% delta. Multithread performance is 33429 versus 23975, a -28.3% difference. Random string sorting shows 39814 versus 28866, a -27.5% delta. Data compression shows 327455 versus 271774, a -17% difference. Even the closest single-thread tests, PassMark single thread at 4043 versus 3782, show a -6.5% delta in favor of the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Where Each One Wins

Given the data, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear winner in every workload category. For computationally intensive tasks like video rendering, scientific simulations, and complex data analysis, the multi-core Cinebench scores are the key indicators. The R23 multi-core score of 28477 for the Core Ultra 7 366H versus 15764 for the Core 7 240H shows a massive advantage in heavily threaded workloads. The R20 multi-core scores follow suit, with 11960 against 8562.

For single-threaded tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light coding, the Core Ultra 7 366H still holds a significant edge. The R23 single-core score of 4020 versus 1719 represents a 57.2% improvement. The R15 single-core score shows an even larger relative difference, with 405 versus 249, a -38.5% delta. This means the Core Ultra 7 366H will feel snappier in everyday applications that rely on single-core responsiveness.

The PassMark results provide insight into specialized workloads. The Core Ultra 7 366H excels in encryption tasks, scoring 25845 versus 15155, indicating better security and data protection performance. In floating point math, the 103615 score against 58905 suggests superior performance in scientific and 3D rendering applications. The integer math test is the only area where the two processors are close, with a -3.9% delta, suggesting that the Core 7 240H can keep up in certain basic integer-heavy workloads, but it still loses.

The Core 7 240H does not have a single winning benchmark. Its only potential advantage lies in its higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 366H, but the recorded data shows this does not translate into any performance win. The lower TDP of the Core Ultra 7 366H, 25 watts versus 45 watts, suggests it can achieve these higher scores while consuming less power, making it a more efficient option for laptops where thermals are a constraint.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures, explaining the performance gap. The Intel Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node. This process shrink is a major factor in the efficiency and performance difference, allowing the Core Ultra 7 366H to deliver higher scores at a lower TDP.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has more cores, but both have the same thread count, indicating a different core type configuration. The base clock of the Core 7 240H is 2.50 GHz, which is higher than the 2.00 GHz base clock of the Core Ultra 7 366H, but the boost clock of the Core 7 240H is 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Despite the lower clocks, the Core Ultra 7 366H wins all benchmarks, showing the architectural advantage of Panther Lake.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 7 240H has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 24 MB. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a much larger L1 cache of 192 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2.5 MB per core, but a smaller shared L3 cache of 18 MB. The larger per-core caches in the Core Ultra 7 366H likely contribute to its superior single-thread performance.

Memory support differs, with the Core 7 240H supporting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 7 366H also has a listed memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure not provided for the Core 7 240H. The PCIe lanes also differ, with the Core 7 240H offering Gen 5 with 8 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 366H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

The integrated graphics are different as well. The Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses the newer Intel Xe3 Graphics. The sockets are not compatible: the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The release dates are also distinct, with the Core 7 240H launching in December 2024 and the Core Ultra 7 366H launching in January 2026.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor in every measured aspect. Its average benchmark score of 41263 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 240H has an average score of 31483, placing it in the 82nd percentile. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits among rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with a 0.1% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, with a -0.3% delta. The Core 7 240H is closest to the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, both with a 0% delta.

For users selecting between these two mobile processors, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the choice for virtually any workload. Its wins in all Cinebench and PassMark tests indicate superior performance in both multi-threaded and single-threaded applications, from professional content creation to everyday productivity. The lower TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts also suggests better power efficiency, which is critical for laptop battery life and thermal management.

The Core 7 240H, with a launch MSRP of $502, offers a legacy architecture that cannot compete on performance. Its only potential value is if the system cost is a primary concern, but the data shows no performance benefit. The Core Ultra 7 366H does not have a listed launch MSRP, but its performance metrics justify its position as the higher-tier product.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4020 versus 1719 for the Intel Core 7 240H, a -57.2% delta. The PassMark single thread test shows 4043 versus 3782, a -6.5% delta.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28477 versus 15764 for the Core 7 240H, a -44.6% delta. The R20 multi-core test shows 11960 versus 8562, a -28.4% difference.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, indicating lower power consumption for the newer processor.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Core 7 240H uses a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 7 366H is built on the Panther Lake architecture, whereas the Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentiles for each?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263 and is in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 240H has an average score of 31483 and is in the 82nd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 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) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

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

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

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

| Launch MSRP | $502 | Not specified |