Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, which wins 15 of the 17 compared benchmarks against the Intel Core 9 270H. The Core 9 270H manages only two wins. The most dramatic separation occurs in the Cinebench R23 suite. In the single-core test, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 against 2040 for the Core 9 270H, a 49.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 366H delivers 28477 versus 18000, a 36.8% lead. These are the two largest deltas in the entire comparison.

The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern, though with smaller margins. The Ultra 7 366H posts 11960 in multi-core against 10268, a 14.1% edge, and 1688 in single-core against 1449, a 14.2% edge. Cinebench R15 shows a similar story: 2870 versus 2464 in multi-core and 405 versus 347 in single-core, with deltas of 14.1% and 14.3% respectively.

PassMark results are more mixed. The Ultra 7 366H wins the floating point math test with 103615 against 70640, a 31.8% margin. It also leads in physics with 2880 versus 1966, a 31.7% gap. The extended instructions test shows 26901 versus 20079, a 25.4% advantage, and data encryption shows 25845 versus 19369, a 25.1% edge. The find prime numbers test is the most lopsided PassMark result: 326 versus 112, a 65.6% margin for the Ultra 7 366H.

The Core 9 270H claims its two wins in integer math and data compression. In integer math it scores 97654 versus 83695, a 16.7% advantage. In data compression it posts 333785 against 327455, a narrower 1.9% margin. The single-thread PassMark tests are close: 4043 versus 3944, a 2.4% edge for the Ultra 7 366H. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 7 366H at 39814 versus 36867, a 7.4% gap. The multithread PassMark test shows 33429 versus 28764, a 14% lead for the Ultra 7 366H.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The Core Ultra 7 366H records an average benchmark score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 9 270H averages 38335, sitting in the 86th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 366H include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 (0.3% ahead). The Core 9 270H sits near the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at 38312 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 (0.2% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (0.3% ahead).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H dominates across nearly every workload category in the database. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests, which indicates broad strength in rendering and general CPU throughput. The PassMark suite adds more specificity: the Ultra 7 366H leads in floating point math, physics, extended instructions, data encryption, prime number finding, random string sorting, multithread performance, and single-thread performance. That breadth suggests the architecture handles both scalar and vector workloads effectively.

The Intel Core 9 270H has a narrower profile. Its win in integer math with 16.7% over the Ultra 7 366H points to strength in integer-heavy computations. Its data compression win, though small at 1.9%, shows it can hold its own in compression workloads. These two wins do not offset the overall gap, but they do define specific areas where the older architecture remains competitive.

The percentile data adds context. The Ultra 7 366H at the 87th percentile sits one point above the Core 9 270H at the 86th percentile, despite the large average score gap of 2928 points. This suggests the Core 9 270H remains competitive against the broader CPU population, but the Ultra 7 366H has a clear edge in this direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Intel Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core 9 generation described as Raptor Lake Refresh. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename, belongs to the Ultra 7 generation, and is built on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Core and thread configurations differ sharply. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating the use of hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning one thread per core. Despite having two fewer cores, the Core 9 270H offers four more threads. The benchmark results show that raw thread count does not translate into performance dominance here, as the Ultra 7 366H wins the multithread PassMark test 33429 to 28764.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 270H features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 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 Ultra 7 366H has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches but a smaller shared L3 pool.

Clock speeds follow the architectural split. The Core 9 270H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 9 270H posts higher clocks on paper, but the recorded benchmark data shows the Ultra 7 366H winning in single-thread tests, including a 49.3% margin in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 366H lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the Core 9 270H does not list a bandwidth figure in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the Core 9 270H and 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7 366H. Boost clocks are 5.80 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. The Core 9 270H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, a 20-watt difference.

Sockets are not shared. The Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes differ at 10 nm for the Core 9 270H and 3 nm for the Ultra 7 366H. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the Core 9 270H versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 7 366H. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 7 366H lists memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the Core 9 270H does not. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 270H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 366H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 9 270H versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 7 366H.

Release dates place the two apart. The Core 9 270H has a release date of 2024-12-17, while the Ultra 7 366H has a release date of 2026-01-04. The Core 9 270H has a launch MSRP of $697; the Ultra 7 366H has no launch MSRP listed. Both are active production parts, both target the mobile market, both lack ECC memory support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SRQ6V for the Core 9 270H and SA4R9Q9EL for the Ultra 7 366H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core 9 270H. The Core 9 270H wins 2, specifically in PassMark integer math and data compression.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 against 2040 for the Core 9 270H, a 49.3% difference. The second largest is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 112, a 65.6% difference by the delta metric.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263, while the Core 9 270H has an average of 38335. The Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, and the Core 9 270H sits in the 86th percentile.

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

A: The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 270H has four more threads despite having two fewer cores.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The Ultra 7 366H lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 9 270H does not list a bandwidth figure.

Q: How do the TDP ratings differ?

A: The Core 9 270H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core 9 270H draws 20 watts more at its rated TDP.