Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 across nearly every recorded workload. It wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, with its largest advantages appearing in data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting. The Core Ultra 7 366H claims only a single victory in the PassMark physics test, where it leads by 10.8 percent. For desktop users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Ultra 5 245 is the clear choice based on these measurements. The Ultra 7 366H, while competitive in specific physics simulations, trails by double-digit percentages in most Cinebench and PassMark tests. The data positions the Ultra 5 245 in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 366H sits at the 87th percentile, reinforcing the desktop part's overall advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel generations and target different market segments. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture and is built for desktop systems with an Intel Socket 1851. It features 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its process node is 3 nm, fabricated by TSMC, and it contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared, with 3 MB of L2 per core and 192 KB of L1 per core. It supports DDR5 memory only, uses a dual-channel bus, and has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, and it provides 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The launch MSRP is $270, and the part number is SRVFE.

The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture and targets mobile platforms with an Intel BGA 2540 socket. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyper-threading, but its base clock drops to 2.00 GHz and boost clock to 4.80 GHz. The process node is also 3 nm, but the foundry is Intel rather than TSMC. Transistor count and die size are not recorded. Its L3 cache is 18 MB shared, with 2.5 MB of L2 per core and the same 192 KB of L1 per core. Memory support extends to both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, still dual-channel, with a slightly higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported, and it provides 12 Gen 5 PCIe lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics. The production status is active for both, with release dates of January 6, 2025 for the Ultra 5 245 and January 4, 2026 for the Ultra 7 366H. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

These architectural differences explain the performance gap. The desktop part runs at significantly higher clocks, while the mobile part operates under a 25 W TDP compared to the 65 W TDP of the desktop chip. The higher power envelope allows the Ultra 5 245 to sustain higher frequencies, which directly contributes to its lead in single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The mobile chip's larger core count of 16 versus 14 does not compensate for its lower clock speeds in the recorded benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is the uniform 15.6 percent advantage for the Ultra 5 245 across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 3318 versus 2870, a 15.6 percent gap. The single-core R15 result shows 468 versus 405, also 15.6 percent. This consistency repeats in R20 multi-core (13828 versus 11960) and single-core (1952 versus 1688), and again in R23 multi-core (32924 versus 28477) and single-core (4648 versus 4020). The identical delta across rendering and single-threaded workloads indicates a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark results show larger variations. Data compression is a major win for the Ultra 5 245, scoring 400942 against 327455, a 22.4 percent lead. Extended instructions deliver 33304 versus 26901, a 23.8 percent advantage, the largest in the entire comparison. Random string sorting follows closely at 23.4 percent, with 49140 against 39814. Floating-point math shows a 16.3 percent lead (120548 versus 103615), while multi-thread performance is 15.8 percent ahead (38706 versus 33429). Data encryption is 17 percent better (30236 versus 25845). Integer math shows a narrower 9 percent gap (91187 versus 83695), and find prime numbers is 12 percent ahead (365 versus 326). Single-thread PassMark scores are 4394 versus 4043, an 8.7 percent difference.

The sole exception is PassMark physics, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 2880 against 2569, a 10.8 percent advantage for the mobile chip. This is an isolated result, and the Ultra 5 245 still holds the overall average benchmark score of 48995, far above the Ultra 7 366H's 41263. The average score delta is substantial, with the desktop part leading by about 18.7 percent based on the recorded averages. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 245 include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G at an average score of 49196 (0.4 percent behind the Ultra 5 245), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 at 49228 (0.5 percent behind), the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H at 48698 (0.6 percent ahead of the Ultra 5 245), and the Intel Core i5-14600K at 48618 (0.8 percent ahead). The Ultra 7 366H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.1 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.1 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 (0.3 percent ahead of the Ultra 7 366H), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40967 (0.7 percent behind).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several measurable specifications. The Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture and the Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake. The desktop part has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the mobile part has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 3.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 65 W versus 25 W. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540. The foundry is TSMC for the desktop chip and Intel for the mobile chip. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 5 245 (17,800 million transistors, 243 mm²). L2 cache per core is 3 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache is 24 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support is DDR5-only versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC support is present on the desktop chip and absent on the mobile chip. PCIe lanes from the CPU are 20 versus 12. Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are January 6, 2025 versus January 4, 2026. Launch MSRP is $270 for the Ultra 5 245, while the Ultra 7 366H has no recorded MSRP. Part numbers are SRVFE versus SA4R9Q9EL. Both processors share identical L1 cache per core (192 KB), a dual-channel memory bus, and both are locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, giving the desktop part a 15.6 percent advantage.

Q: Does the mobile chip win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Ultra 7 366H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 2880 versus 2569, a 10.8 percent lead over the Ultra 5 245.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 7 366H has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 245.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, while the Ultra 7 366H has an average of 41263. The desktop part ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and the mobile part ranks in the 87th percentile.