Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 records an average benchmark score of 46062, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two?

A: The largest single-test difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477 versus 14769 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a delta of 48.1 percent in favor of the Ultra 7.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 235 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 235 wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, including all PassMark math and data tests, plus the PassMark single-thread test.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The data splits by test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 versus 2085 for the Ultra 5, a 48.1 percent advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 scores 4516 versus 4043, an 11.7 percent advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The base clocks differ more significantly: 3.40 GHz for the Ultra 5 versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H dominates in Cinebench rendering workloads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 dominates in PassMark system-level tests. The Ultra 7 wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) by margins of 48.1 to 48.2 percent. The Ultra 5 wins all nine PassMark tests except physics, with margins ranging from 5.1 percent in integer math to 23 percent in random string sorting.

For users whose workloads resemble Cinebench, which stresses sustained multi-core rendering and single-core responsiveness under that specific test harness, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with its Panther Lake architecture, deliver roughly double the Cinebench scores of the Ultra 5.

For users whose workloads resemble PassMark's suite, which includes data compression, encryption, floating-point math, prime number finding, and memory-intensive sorting, the Core Ultra 5 235 is the stronger pick. It wins 10 of 17 total head-to-head tests and holds a higher average benchmark score overall, 46062 versus 41263, a difference of about 11.6 percent.

The Core Ultra 5 235 targets desktop systems with a 65 W TDP, Socket 1851, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 366H targets mobile systems with a 25 W TDP, BGA 2540, and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The data does not indicate that one is universally superior; it indicates that they serve different performance profiles. The Ultra 5 delivers higher aggregate PassMark performance and a better percentile ranking, while the Ultra 7 delivers far higher Cinebench rendering scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent and overwhelming advantage for the Core Ultra 7 366H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 2870 against 1488 for the Ultra 5, a 48.2 percent lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 405 versus 210, a 48.1 percent lead. Moving to R20, the multi-core score is 11960 versus 6202, and the single-core score is 1688 versus 875, both again approximately 48 percent ahead. The R23 results continue this trend: multi-core at 28477 versus 14769 and single-core at 4020 versus 2085. This consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates a fundamental architectural advantage in the Ultra 7's rendering throughput, not a test-specific anomaly.

The PassMark results reverse the picture. The Core Ultra 5 235 leads in data compression with 390711 versus 327455, a 19.3 percent margin. Data encryption shows 29293 versus 25845, a 13.3 percent lead. Extended instructions score 32752 versus 26901, a 21.8 percent margin. Prime number finding favors the Ultra 5 at 371 versus 326, a 13.8 percent lead. Floating-point math scores 117951 versus 103615, also 13.8 percent ahead. Integer math is closer at 87948 versus 83695, a 5.1 percent margin. The multithread PassMark score is 37816 versus 33429, a 13.1 percent lead. Random string sorting shows the largest gap at 48980 versus 39814, a 23 percent margin.

The single-thread PassMark test favors the Ultra 5 with 4516 versus 4043, an 11.7 percent lead, which contradicts the Cinebench single-core results. This discrepancy suggests the two test suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance. The only PassMark test the Ultra 7 wins is physics, scoring 2880 versus 2570, a 10.8 percent lead.

The overall win count stands at 10 for the Ultra 5 and 7 for the Ultra 7. The average benchmark score confirms the Ultra 5's aggregate lead: 46062 versus 41263. The nearest rivals provide context: the Ultra 5 sits within 0.2 percent of the AMD EPYC 4364P and EPYC 7303, and within 0.1 percent of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375. The Ultra 7 sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, and within 0.7 percent of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the Ultra 5 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor enables simultaneous multithreading, as both thread counts equal their core counts. The clock speeds diverge substantially: the Ultra 5 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Ultra 7 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP differs by 40 W: 65 W for the Ultra 5 versus 25 W for the Ultra 7, reflecting their desktop versus mobile positioning.

The sockets are incompatible: the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2540. The memory support differs: the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 7 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5, despite the latter's higher clocks. PCIe lane counts differ: the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The release dates differ by roughly one year: the Ultra 5 launched on 2025-01-06, and the Ultra 7 launched on 2026-01-04. The Ultra 5 has a launch MSRP of $257, while the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers, and both are listed as active production parts. The part numbers are SRQAS for the Ultra 5 and SA4R9Q9EL for the Ultra 7.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families within the Core Ultra series. The Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, part of Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H mobile variant, part of Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the Ultra 5, while Intel produces the Ultra 7.

The transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the Ultra 5: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 7's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The cache hierarchy differs in the L2 and L3 levels. Both have L1 cache at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the Ultra 5 versus 2.5 MB per core for the Ultra 7. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared for the Ultra 5 versus 18 MB shared for the Ultra 7. Neither has 3D V-Cache.

The memory controller support differs as noted: DDR5 only for the Ultra 5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7. The integrated graphics architecture differs: Arc Xe-LPG for the Ultra 5 versus Xe3 for the Ultra 7. The PCIe implementation differs in lane count: 20 lanes for the Ultra 5 versus 12 lanes for the Ultra 7, both at Gen 5.

The base clock gap of 1.40 GHz between the two likely reflects the mobile power envelope of the Ultra 7, which has a TDP of 25 W versus 65 W for the desktop Ultra 5. Despite the lower clocks, the Ultra 7's newer Panther Lake architecture and higher core count deliver superior Cinebench performance. The Ultra 5's higher L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB) and higher L2 per core (3 MB versus 2.5 MB) may contribute to its PassMark advantages in data-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins in system-level integer and data workloads. The PassMark data compression test shows a 19.3 percent lead, and data encryption shows a 13.3 percent lead. These results indicate the Ultra 5 handles memory-intensive data manipulation more efficiently, possibly due to its larger L2 and L3 caches. The 5.1 percent lead in integer math and the 13.8 percent lead in floating-point math reinforce this pattern. The 23 percent lead in random string sorting is the largest PassMark margin, pointing to strong memory subsystem performance for the Ultra 5. The single-thread PassMark score also favors the Ultra 5 by 11.7 percent, suggesting that under PassMark's specific single-thread harness, the higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz provides a tangible benefit.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in rendering and physics workloads. All six Cinebench tests show a 48.1 to 48.2 percent advantage, which represents a near-doubling of performance. This consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates that the Ultra 7's 16 cores and Panther Lake architecture deliver substantially higher sustained multi-core throughput for rendering tasks. The single-core Cinebench results also favor the Ultra 7 by 48.1 percent, which is notable because the Ultra 5 has a higher boost clock. This suggests the Ultra 7's newer core design achieves higher instructions per clock in this workload. The PassMark physics test also favors the Ultra 7 by 10.8 percent, adding a simulation-oriented workload to its win column.

The overall average benchmark score favors the Ultra 5: 46062 versus 41263, a difference of 11.6 percent. The percentile ranking also favors the Ultra 5 at 89 versus 87. However, the choice between the two depends entirely on the workload profile. For Cinebench-style rendering, video encoding, and physics simulation, the Ultra 7 366H is the stronger processor by a large margin. For PassMark-style data compression, encryption, sorting, and general math throughput, the Ultra 5 235 is the stronger processor, with a higher aggregate score and more wins in the head-to-head comparison. The desktop form factor of the Ultra 5 with its 65 W TDP and the mobile form factor of the Ultra 7 with its 25 W TDP further separate their intended use cases.