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

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark results show a clear split between the two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H takes a single victory. This is not a balanced contest. The Ultra 5 245HX dominates across rendering workloads, data compression, encryption, and general compute tasks. The one area where the Ultra 7 366H pulls ahead is PassMark physics, a test that often responds to different scheduling or core arrangement characteristics.

The 245HX holds its largest advantages in data compression, where it leads by 20%, and random string sorting, where it is 19.6% ahead. These are memory-latency-sensitive and branch-heavy workloads, so the margin indicates a substantial architectural edge rather than a small clock-speed difference. The 245HX also leads by 16.5% in floating-point math and 16.2% in data encryption. The Ultra 7 366H counters with a 12.3% lead in physics, which is a notable outlier given the rest of the data.

For users selecting between these parts, the 245HX is the stronger choice for Cinebench rendering, integer math, and any workload that stresses single-thread performance. The 366H offers a physics advantage that may matter in specific simulation or game-physics scenarios, but the overall benchmark profile favors the 245HX by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel Core Ultra generations and use different underlying designs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX variant, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: the 245HX is manufactured by TSMC, while the 366H is produced by Intel.

Core counts differ as well. The 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, with no hyperthreading. The 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. Despite having two fewer cores, the 245HX posts higher multi-core scores across every Cinebench version in the data. This suggests the Arrow Lake-HX design extracts more performance per core than the Panther Lake-H layout.

Cache hierarchies are not identical. The 245HX provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The 366H offers the same 192 KB of L1 per core but reduces L2 to 2.5 MB per core and L3 to 18 MB shared. The larger caches on the 245HX likely contribute to its wins in cache-sensitive tests like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support also differs. The 245HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a slightly higher 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The 366H has the bandwidth advantage, but the 245HX still wins memory-heavy benchmarks, pointing to cache and core efficiency as the deciding factors.

PCIe lane counts separate the two as well. The 245HX provides 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the 366H provides 12 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the 245HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units, while the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither part supports ECC memory. The 245HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniform. Across R15, R20, and R23, the 245HX leads by 13.6% in every single-core and multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 245HX scores 3261 against 2870 for the 366H. The single-core R15 result is 460 versus 405. Moving to R20, the multi-core gap stays at 13.6%, with scores of 13590 and 11960. The single-core R20 result is 1918 versus 1688. In R23, the multi-core scores are 32358 and 28477, with single-core at 4568 and 4020. The consistent 13.6% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates a uniform clock-for-clock and core-for-core advantage.

PassMark results show a broader range of gaps. The largest is in data compression, where the 245HX scores 393071 against 327455, a 20% lead. Random string sorting follows at 19.6%, with scores of 47616 and 39814. Floating-point math shows a 16.5% gap, 120735 versus 103615. Data encryption is 16.2% ahead, 30022 versus 25845. Extended instructions come in at 16%, 31212 versus 26901.

Smaller but still decisive margins appear in multithread performance, where the 245HX scores 38069 versus 33429, a 13.9% lead. Single-thread PassMark shows 4481 versus 4043, a 10.8% gap. Integer math and prime number finding both show 10.1% leads, with scores of 92150 versus 83695 and 359 versus 326 respectively.

The single 366H win is in PassMark physics, where it scores 2880 against 2526 for the 245HX. This is a 12.3% advantage in the other direction. Physics tests in PassMark often measure specific instruction sequences or memory access patterns that favor the Panther Lake design, but the rest of the suite does not follow that pattern.

Specification Differences

The core count differs: 14 cores for the 245HX against 16 cores for the 366H. Thread counts mirror core counts, 14 threads for the 245HX and 16 threads for the 366H.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 245HX has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 245HX holds a 1.10 GHz base-clock advantage and a 0.30 GHz boost-clock advantage.

Thermal design power is not the same. The 245HX is rated at 55 W, while the 366H is rated at 25 W. The 245HX consumes more power by specification, which aligns with its higher clock speeds and larger cache.

Socket types differ: the 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable.

Cache specifications differ as noted earlier: L2 is 3 MB per core for the 245HX versus 2.5 MB per core for the 366H, and L3 is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the 245HX supports only DDR5, while the 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 366H at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

PCIe lanes differ: 20 Gen 5 lanes for the 245HX versus 12 Gen 5 lanes for the 366H.

Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units for the 245HX versus Intel Xe3 Graphics for the 366H.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 245HX but locked on the 366H.

Release dates differ: the 245HX launched on 2025-01-12, while the 366H launched on 2026-01-04.

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 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: Why does the 14-core 245HX beat the 16-core 366H in multi-core Cinebench?

A: The 245HX wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests by 13.6%. Its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, larger L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB, and higher 55 W TDP contribute to this result despite having two fewer cores.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data compression, where the 245HX leads by 20%, scoring 393071 against 327455.

Q: Does the 366H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the 366H wins PassMark physics, scoring 2880 against 2526 for the 245HX, a 12.3% advantage.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The 366H has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 245HX. The 366H also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5.

Q: Are the socket types the same?

A: No. The 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. They are not compatible with each other.