Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H shows a decisive performance advantage across every measured benchmark category, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. This absence of comparative data means the head-to-head analysis relies entirely on the Ultra 7 366H's measured results and its standing against its nearest rivals.

The Core Ultra 7 366H posts a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 28477, which places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its single-core R23 result of 4020 confirms strong per-thread performance. In the PassMark suite, the chip delivers a multithread score of 33429 and a single-thread score of 4043. The floating point math test returns 103615, integer math reaches 83695, and extended instructions score 26901. Data compression hits 327455, while data encryption reaches 25845. The find prime numbers test yields 326, random string sorting scores 39814, and the physics test records 2880.

Because the Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot produce direct win/loss tallies for these two processors. The winsA and winsB fields both remain at zero, reflecting the lack of head-to-head measurements. The Core Ultra 7 366H's average benchmark score of 41263, however, provides a useful anchor for comparison against its nearest rivals.

The closest competitor in the database is the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which scores 41376, a delta of -0.3% relative to the Core Ultra 7 366H. That places the Ultra 7 366H essentially at parity with a previous-generation desktop flagship. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215, just 0.1% behind, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also scores 41215, again 0.1% behind. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records 40967, a 0.7% deficit. These narrow margins indicate that the Core Ultra 7 366H sits in a tightly clustered performance band, slightly ahead of its direct mobile rivals and marginally behind only the Ryzen 9 5900X.

The single-core PassMark result of 4043 demonstrates strong per-thread capability, which matters for responsiveness and lightly threaded workloads. The multi-thread score of 33429, when compared against the R23 multi-core result of 28477, shows consistent scaling across different rendering and compute workloads. The data compression score of 327455 versus encryption at 25845 suggests the chip handles compression tasks particularly well relative to cryptographic workloads.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the only one of the two with any recorded performance measurements, and those measurements place it in the upper tier of the database at the 87th percentile. The Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no percentile ranking, making direct comparison impossible from the recorded data.

For workloads requiring multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 7 366H's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 and PassMark multithread score of 33429 indicate strong parallel processing capability. The 16 cores and 16 threads configuration delivers these results without hyper-threading, relying instead on native core count and architecture efficiency.

The nearest rival data shows the Core Ultra 7 366H is effectively tied with the Core Ultra 7 356H (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.1% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (0.3% behind). These deltas are within measurement noise, suggesting the 366H delivers performance comparable to these established processors.

Users considering the Core 7 251E must rely on its specifications alone, as no measured performance exists in the database. The 251E offers 24 cores and 32 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, specifications that suggest substantial multi-threading potential, but without benchmark data, that potential remains unverified.

The Core Ultra 7 366H, by contrast, has verifiable results across 17 separate benchmark tests, covering rendering, encryption, compression, prime number calculation, floating point, integer math, physics simulation, and sorting. This breadth of testing allows confident assessment of its capabilities.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The average benchmark score is 41263, placing the processor in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 366H compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X?

A: The Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41376, which is 0.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 366H's 41263. The difference is minimal, effectively placing the two at parity.

Q: What are the single-core performance results for the Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 4020, while the PassMark single-thread score is 4043. The Cinebench R20 single-core score is 1688, and the R15 single-core score is 405.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark results for the Core 7 251E. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile ranking is 50, which reflects the absence of measured data rather than actual performance.

Q: What is the multi-core Cinebench R23 score for the Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The multi-core Cinebench R23 score is 28477, which represents the processor's rendering throughput under multi-threaded load.

Q: How close are the nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 7 366H in average score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 both score 41215, just 0.1% behind. The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40967, a 0.7% gap. The Ryzen 9 5900X leads by 0.3% at 41376.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification field. The Intel Core 7 251E uses 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. The 251E has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to the 366H's 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the 251E is rated at 65 watts, while the 366H is rated at 25 watts. The socket types are incompatible, with the 251E using Intel Socket 1700 and the 366H using Intel BGA 2540. The 251E targets the desktop market segment, while the 366H targets mobile.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The 251E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The 366H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The 251E's larger L3 cache totals double the 366H's shared cache.

Memory support also differs. The 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s and no ECC support.

PCIe lane counts vary: the 251E provides 16 CPU lanes of Gen 5, while the 366H provides 12 CPU lanes of Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ, with the 251E using UHD Graphics 770 and the 366H using Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The 251E has a launch MSRP of $384, while the 366H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The die size for the 251E is 257 mm², while the 366H has no recorded die size.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is pronounced. The Intel Core 7 251E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 7 generation, fabricated on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, also at Intel.

The process node difference represents a significant manufacturing advancement: the 366H uses a 3 nm process compared to the 251E's 10 nm process. This likely contributes to the 366H's lower 25-watt TDP despite its substantial performance scores, as measured in the database.

Core architecture differs in cache organization. The 366H allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, more than double the 251E's 80 KB per core. The L2 cache also favors the 366H at 2.5 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. The 251E compensates with a larger shared L3 cache of 36 MB versus 18 MB, suggesting different cache hierarchy philosophies between the desktop and mobile designs.

Threading strategy differs as well. The 251E supports hyper-threading, delivering 32 threads from 24 cores. The 366H does not, providing 16 threads from 16 cores. Despite this apparent disadvantage in thread count, the 366H's measured multi-core R23 score of 28477 demonstrates that its architecture extracts high throughput from fewer threads.

The integrated graphics solutions represent different generations: UHD Graphics 770 on the 251E versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the 366H. Memory controller capabilities also diverge, with the 251E supporting older DDR4 alongside DDR5, while the 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, the latter being a mobile-oriented memory type.

The 366H's higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the 251E, combined with its smaller L3 cache, suggests the mobile processor relies more on fast memory access than large on-die caching. The 251E's larger L3 and ECC support indicate a workstation-leaning desktop design.

Release dates place the 251E at January 12, 2025, while the 366H arrived nearly a year later on January 4, 2026. Both processors remain in active production status. The part numbers differ as SRQDUQ657 for the 251E and SA4R9Q9EL for the 366H.

The 366H's process node advantage and higher memory bandwidth, combined with its verified benchmark scores at the 87th percentile, position it as the more advanced design in the database. The 251E's specifications suggest raw core-count superiority, but without measured benchmarks, its actual performance cannot be quantified against the 366H's recorded results.