Intel Core 7 350 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H across nearly every benchmark. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 7 366H wins 15, while the Intel Core 7 350 takes only 2. The scale of the Ultra 7's victories is substantial, with most deltas ranging from roughly 28% to more than 70% in its favor.

The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28,477 versus 8,030 for the Core 7 350, a delta of -71.8% from the perspective of the smaller chip. That represents a roughly 3.5x advantage in multi-threaded rendering. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 11,960 versus 5,373, a -55.1% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core confirms the trend with 2,870 versus 1,220, a -57.5% delta.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the Core Ultra 7 366H in Cinebench workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 7 posts 4,020 against 2,046, a -49.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,688 versus 758, a -55.1% delta, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 405 versus 292, a -27.9% delta. The Core 7 350 does manage to win in PassMark single-thread testing, scoring 4,100 versus 4,043, a modest 1.4% advantage. This is the only head-to-head win for the Core 7 350, appearing twice in the database under the single-thread and singlethread test names.

PassMark workloads consistently place the Core Ultra 7 366H far ahead. Data compression scores 327,455 versus 143,123, a -56.3% delta. Data encryption scores 25,845 versus 10,933, a -57.7% delta. Extended instructions score 26,901 versus 12,045, a -55.2% delta. Prime number finding scores 326 versus 107, a -67.2% delta. Floating point math scores 103,615 versus 42,809, a -58.7% delta. Integer math scores 83,695 versus 33,734, a -59.7% delta. Multi-thread score is 33,429 versus 15,170, a -54.6% delta. Physics scores 2,880 versus 1,173, a -59.3% delta. Random string sorting scores 39,814 versus 17,238, a -56.7% delta.

The average benchmark score reinforces the divide. The Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263, landing in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 350 averages 17,779, placing in the 71st percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350 include the Intel Core 5 221TE at an average score of 17,860 (-0.5% delta), the AMD EPYC 9374F at 17,693 (0.5% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (-0.6% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 (-0.7% delta). The Core Ultra 7 366H sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41,215 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41,376 (-0.3% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40,967 (0.7% delta).

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is substantially faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28,477 versus 8,030 for the Intel Core 7 350, a 71.8% advantage. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 350 win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Core 7 350 wins PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 4,100 versus 4,043 for the Core Ultra 7 366H, a 1.4% advantage. This result appears twice in the database under the single-thread and singlethread test names.

Q: How large is the gap in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41,263, while the Core 7 350 averages 17,779. The Ultra 7 sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 71st percentile for the Core 7 350.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: For the Core 7 350, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core 5 221TE at 17,860 (-0.5% delta), the AMD EPYC 9374F at 17,693 (0.5% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891 (-0.6% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898 (-0.7% delta). For the Core Ultra 7 366H, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41,215 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41,376 (-0.3% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40,967 (0.7% delta).

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H leads in all Cinebench single-core tests. It scores 4,020 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2,046 for the Core 7 350, a 49.1% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 1,688 versus 758, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 405 versus 292.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark integer and floating point math?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H leads in both. Integer math scores 83,695 versus 33,734, a 59.7% advantage. Floating point math scores 103,615 versus 42,809, a 58.7% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, with the codename Panther Lake and the generation label Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). Both are built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry, so the manufacturing node is identical.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. That 10-core difference explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap observed in the benchmark data. The base clock of the Core 7 350 is 1.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 366H starts at 2.00 GHz. Both processors boost to 4.80 GHz, so peak single-thread frequency is the same, though the Core 7 350 still manages a narrow win in PassMark single-thread testing.

Cache hierarchy shows a notable difference in L3 capacity. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core: 192 KB per core for L1 and 2.5 MB per core for L2. The larger L3 on the Ultra 7 likely supports its higher core count and data-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Core 7 350 uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, roughly double the throughput. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 7 350 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The newer generation and double the lane count give the Ultra 7 more headroom for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 350 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, though the database does not specify the Xe core count for the Ultra 7. Both target the mobile market segment and are currently active production parts.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 7 350 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core Ultra 7 366H launched earlier, with a release date of 2026-01-04, while the Core 7 350 followed with a release date of 2026-04-15. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469; the Core Ultra 7 366H has no listed launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 7 350 and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H differ across several specification fields. Core count: 6 versus 16. Thread count: 6 versus 16. Base clock: 1.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock is identical at 4.80 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel BGA 1516 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Wildcat Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H).

Cache differs only in L3: 6 MB shared for the Core 7 350 versus 18 MB shared for the Core Ultra 7 366H. L1 and L2 are the same. Memory bus: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 6 lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) for the Core 7 350 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2026-01-04. Launch MSRP: $469 for the Core 7 350, none listed for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Part numbers differ: SAE3F for the Core 7 350 and SA4R9Q9EL for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), process node (3 nm), foundry (Intel), memory support (DDR5, LPDDR5X), ECC support (false), market segment (Mobile), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins decisively in multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 71.8% lead, and PassMark multi-thread shows a 54.6% lead. Data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, physics, and random string sorting all favor the Ultra 7 by margins between 54.6% and 67.2%. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration, dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 18 MB of L3 cache give it a clear advantage for rendering, compilation, scientific computing, and other parallel tasks. The 25 W TDP and Gen 5 PCIe with 12 lanes also position it for performance-focused mobile systems.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins only in PassMark single-thread testing, with a 1.4% edge over the Core Ultra 7 366H. Despite a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, both boost to 4.80 GHz, and the Core 7 350 posts 4,100 versus 4,043. This is a narrow margin, but it indicates that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the smaller chip can match or slightly exceed the larger one. The 15 W TDP and single-channel memory configuration suggest the Core 7 350 is built for power-conscious designs, while the 6 MB L3 and 6 lanes of Gen 4 PCIe keep the platform simpler.

The average benchmark score difference of 41,263 versus 17,779 places the two processors in different performance tiers. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st percentile. For workloads that scale with core count, memory bandwidth, or cache capacity, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice. For workloads that hinge on raw single-thread speed at lower power, the Core 7 350 holds a slight edge, though its single win is small in magnitude.