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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H represent two distinct approaches within Intel’s recent lineup. The Ultra 5 235A is a desktop part built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor using the newer Panther Lake design. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop chip winning 16 of 17 head-to-head tests. The single exception is the PassMark physics test, where the mobile chip takes a decisive lead. This split indicates that the Ultra 7 366H has a specific strength in physics-based workloads, while the Ultra 5 235A dominates general computing, rendering, and single-threaded tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins across almost every measured category. In Cinebench tests, which reflect rendering and multi-threaded content creation, the Ultra 5 235A holds a consistent 14.6% advantage over the Ultra 7 366H in both single-core and multi-core variants. This includes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, where the desktop chip scores 3289, 13705, and 32633 respectively, versus the mobile chip’s 2870, 11960, and 28477. The margin is identical across all three Cinebench versions, suggesting a stable architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark results reinforce this pattern. The Ultra 5 235A leads in data compression by 20.3%, in data encryption by 16.6%, in extended instructions by 17.6%, and in floating point math by 14.6%. The largest single win for the desktop part comes in random string sorting, where it scores 49489 against 39814, a 24.3% margin. Even in integer math, where the gap is smallest, the Ultra 5 235A still manages a 5.9% lead with 88626 versus 83695.

The Ultra 7 366H claims only one victory: PassMark physics. Here it scores 2880 against the Ultra 5 235A’s 2437, a 15.4% advantage. This is a notable outlier given the mobile chip’s lower clock speeds and power envelope. Physics simulations often scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores versus 14, plus higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The data suggests this specific test favors those attributes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has an average benchmark score of 48201, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41263, which puts it in the 87th percentile.

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

A: The Ultra 5 235A wins all single-thread tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4607 versus 4020, a 14.6% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4557 versus 4043, a 12.7% advantage.

Q: Is the Ultra 7 366H faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Ultra 7 366H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 2880, which is 15.4% higher than the Ultra 5 235A’s 2437. This is the only head-to-head test where the mobile chip comes out ahead.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 235A’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380, with an average score of 48171, a 0.1% difference. The Ultra 7 366H’s nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with an average score of 41215, also a 0.1% difference.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 7 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both include integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the cleanest comparison between the two processors. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Ultra 5 235A wins both multi-core and single-core tests by exactly 14.6%. For multi-core, the scores are 3289 versus 2870 in R15, 13705 versus 11960 in R20, and 32633 versus 28477 in R23. For single-core, the scores are 464 versus 405 in R15, 1934 versus 1688 in R20, and 4607 versus 4020 in R23. The uniformity of the delta suggests the desktop chip’s higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz plays a decisive role, along with its larger L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB.

PassMark tests show more variation. The largest gap appears in random string sorting, where the Ultra 5 235A leads by 24.3%. Data compression shows a 20.3% margin, and finding prime numbers shows a 20.2% margin. These tasks are often sensitive to cache hierarchy and memory latency, and the Ultra 5 235A’s 3 MB per-core L2 cache versus 2.5 MB per-core on the Ultra 7 366H likely contributes to this advantage. The smallest win for the desktop chip is in integer math, at 5.9%, which is surprisingly narrow given the other margins. This suggests that integer operations are less dependent on the architectural differences between the two parts.

The only reverse result is physics. The Ultra 7 366H scores 2880 versus 2437, a 15.4% win. This test may benefit from the mobile chip’s higher core count (16 versus 14) and its superior memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The physics score is also the only benchmark where the Ultra 7 366H outperforms its average rival group, as it sits at the 87th percentile despite losing most other tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip supports simultaneous multithreading, so core count equals thread count for both. The base clock is dramatically different: the Ultra 5 235A runs at 3.40 GHz, while the Ultra 7 366H runs at 2.00 GHz. The boost clocks are closer, with the Ultra 5 235A reaching 5.00 GHz and the Ultra 7 366H reaching 4.80 GHz.

The thermal design power (TDP) shows the biggest gap. The Ultra 5 235A has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 7 366H is rated at 25 watts. This explains the performance differences in sustained workloads, as the desktop chip has far more thermal headroom. The socket types also differ completely: the Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, which is a soldered mobile package.

Memory support and bandwidth also vary. The Ultra 5 235A supports only DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well, with the Ultra 5 235A providing 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 12 Gen 5 lanes on the Ultra 7 366H. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 235A is $269; the Ultra 7 366H has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Ultra 5 235A is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, codenamed Panther Lake, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundry differs: the Ultra 5 235A is produced by TSMC, while the Ultra 7 366H is produced by Intel.

The transistor count and die size are only listed for the Ultra 5 235A, which has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such data is available for the Ultra 7 366H. Cache configurations differ in the L2 and L3 levels. Both share the same 192 KB per-core L1 cache, but the Ultra 5 235A has 3 MB per-core L2 cache, while the Ultra 7 366H has 2.5 MB per-core. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the Ultra 5 235A versus 18 MB on the Ultra 7 366H.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers. The market segments are fundamentally different: the Ultra 5 235A is a desktop processor, while the Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor. Release dates also diverge, with the Ultra 5 235A appearing on 2025-07-28 and the Ultra 7 366H on 2026-01-04.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward choice for most workloads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the faster processor in 16 of 17 tests, with an average benchmark score of 48201 that places it in the 90th percentile. The Ultra 7 366H trails with an average score of 41263, ranking in the 87th percentile. The desktop chip’s wins are consistent and often substantial, particularly in Cinebench rendering where it leads by 14.6% across every version, and in PassMark data compression and random string sorting where margins exceed 20%.

The Ultra 7 366H has one clear advantage: the PassMark physics test, where it wins by 15.4%. This result, combined with its 16 cores and higher memory bandwidth, indicates that physics-based simulations are its niche. The mobile chip also offers a lower TDP of 25 watts versus 65 watts, making it suitable for systems where power consumption is a priority, though the database does not include power efficiency benchmarks.

For users building a desktop system and prioritizing raw performance, the Ultra 5 235A is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its higher boost clock, larger cache, and superior scores across nearly all measured workloads confirm this. For mobile users who need physics performance and can accept lower scores elsewhere, the Ultra 7 366H holds a specific appeal. The data does not support a general recommendation for the mobile chip, but its physics win is real and measurable.