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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H represent two distinct approaches from Intel for different market segments. The 245K is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture for Socket 1851, while the 366H is a mobile processor built on the Panther Lake architecture for BGA 2540. The benchmark data shows a 14 to 3 win split in favor of the desktop chip, but the single-core and specific multi-core results tell a more nuanced story about their respective strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations. The Core Ultra 5 245K uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S variant, and falls into the Ultra 5 generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, containing 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Ultra 7 generation. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but at Intel's own foundry, with transistor count and die size not recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs noticeably. The 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts match core counts exactly. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. L2 cache differs, with the 245K providing 3 MB per core and the 366H providing 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache also differs: the 245K has 24 MB shared, while the 366H has 18 MB shared.

The integrated graphics solutions are distinct. The 245K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Memory support differs as well: the 245K supports DDR5 only, while the 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 245K supports ECC memory, while the 366H does not. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the 245K offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) and the 366H offering Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The 245K has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The 245K has a TDP of 125 watts, which is typical for a desktop part, while the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, which suits its mobile market segment.

Q: Which chip supports LPDDR5X memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports LPDDR5X memory, in addition to DDR5. The 245K only supports DDR5.

Q: What is the recorded memory bandwidth for each?

A: The 245K has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the 366H has a higher figure of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 245K has an average benchmark score of 54053, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The 366H has an average score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The 245K was released on 2024-10-23, while the 366H was released later on 2026-01-04.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its largest victory comes in PassMark data compression, where it scores 458817 against 327455, a 40.1% advantage. It also dominates in PassMark extended instructions with a 39.8% lead (37617 vs 26901) and in PassMark random string sorting with a 38.4% lead (55098 vs 39814). The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a 34.1% win for the 245K (3850 vs 2870), and Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 28.5% lead (15368 vs 11960).

The 245K also takes PassMark single-thread with 4714 against 4043, a 16.6% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a 17.7% lead (98524 vs 83695), and PassMark floating point math shows a 26.1% lead (130678 vs 103615). PassMark multithread gives a 28.8% win (43047 vs 33429), and PassMark data encryption also yields a 28.8% lead (33286 vs 25845). PassMark find prime numbers shows a 27% advantage (414 vs 326), while PassMark physics is the closest race, with the 245K winning by only 7% (3081 vs 2880). Cinebench R20 singlecore also goes to the 245K with a 28.5% lead (2169 vs 1688).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins three benchmarks, and its single-core results are remarkable. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the 366H scores 4020 against 2132, a 47% advantage over the 245K. This is the largest winning margin in either direction across all tests. The 366H also wins Cinebench R15 singlecore with 405 against 322, a 20.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 366H scores 28477 against 25066, a 12% lead, despite having fewer wins elsewhere in multi-threaded workloads.

These results show that the 366H is not simply a scaled-down version of the 245K. Its single-core performance in Cinebench R23 is dramatically higher, and it manages to outscore the desktop chip in that specific multi-core test despite the 245K winning other multi-core tests. The 245K's overall strength in the PassMark suite and earlier Cinebench versions indicates it handles sustained throughput tasks better, while the 366H excels in workloads that favor its newer core design.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several recorded specifications. The 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the 245K runs at 4.20 GHz, while the 366H runs at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz for the 245K and 4.80 GHz for the 366H. TDP is 125 watts for the 245K and 25 watts for the 366H.

The socket types are completely different: the 245K uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The architectures differ, with Arrow Lake for the 245K and Panther Lake for the 366H. The foundries also differ, with TSMC producing the 245K and Intel producing the 366H. Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the 245K, at 17,800 million and 243 mm² respectively.

L2 cache per core is 3 MB for the 245K and 2.5 MB for the 366H. L3 cache is 24 MB shared for the 245K and 18 MB shared for the 366H. Memory support includes DDR5 for both, with LPDDR5X added only for the 366H. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the 245K and 115.2 GB/s for the 366H. ECC support is present on the 245K but absent on the 366H. PCIe lanes are 20 for the 245K and 12 for the 366H. Integrated graphics differ as noted, and the 245K has an unlocked multiplier while the 366H does not. The 245K has a launch MSRP of $319, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the 366H. The market segments are Desktop for the 245K and Mobile for the 366H. Production status is Active for both, with part numbers SRQCT and SA4R9Q9EL respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins in the majority of recorded workloads. Its 40.1% lead in data compression and 38.4% lead in random string sorting make it the clear choice for file archiving, database operations, and text processing tasks. The 28.8% wins in multithread and data encryption indicate strength in general productivity and security-related workloads. The 26.1% lead in floating point math and 17.7% lead in integer math point to solid scientific and financial computing performance. The 27% advantage in prime number finding supports its use in computational workloads. The 245K also holds a 16.6% single-thread advantage in PassMark, which covers everyday application responsiveness.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in three specific areas. Its 47% lead in Cinebench R23 singlecore is exceptional, suggesting it delivers superior performance in lightly threaded applications that rely on a single core, such as older games, certain productivity tools, or interactive rendering. The 20.5% lead in Cinebench R15 singlecore reinforces this strength. The 12% win in Cinebench R23 multicore is notable because it shows the mobile chip can beat the desktop chip in at least one modern multi-core benchmark, likely due to its higher core count and newer architecture.

The 366H also delivers its performance within a 25 watt TDP, compared to the 245K's 125 watt TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are limited. The 245K, with its desktop socket and unlocked multiplier, is designed for build-your-own systems with aftermarket cooling and overclocking potential.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy in most tests, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K winning 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its victories in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and math workloads give it a decisive edge for desktop users running heavy multi-threaded applications. The 245K also holds a PassMark single-thread lead of 16.6%, which covers general desktop usage.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, however, shows that mobile processors have closed the gap in specific areas. Its Cinebench R23 singlecore result is 47% higher than the 245K, and its Cinebench R23 multicore result is 12% higher. These wins suggest that for users prioritizing the latest rendering workloads that scale well with newer core designs, the 366H is competitive despite its much lower TDP of 25 watts.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum throughput across a broad range of tasks, the 245K is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. Its average benchmark score of 54053 places it in the 91st percentile, and it sits within 1.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, a close rival. For a mobile user who needs strong single-thread performance and competitive Cinebench R23 results within a low power envelope, the 366H is the better pick, sitting in the 87th percentile with an average score of 41263, just 0.1% behind its closest rival, the Core Ultra 7 356H. The choice depends on whether the workload favors the 245K's broad multi-thread dominance or the 366H's specific single-core and modern rendering strengths.