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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Core Ultra 7 366H. The largest margins appear in data compression and extended instruction workloads. The 245KF scores 460,123 in PassMark data compression versus 327,455 for the 366H, a 40.5 percent advantage. In PassMark extended instructions, the 245KF posts 37,912 against 26,901, another 40.9 percent lead. These are the two most lopsided results in the comparison.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 28.7 percent wins across all six tests, whether single-core or multi-core. For Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 245KF records 36,647 versus 28,477. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 5,173 against 4,020. This uniformity suggests a fundamental performance gap rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark integer math shows the narrowest relative margin outside physics. The 245KF scores 98,854 against 83,695, an 18.1 percent lead. PassMark single-thread, at 4,715 versus 4,043, shows a 16.6 percent advantage. The smallest delta in the entire set is PassMark physics, where the 245KF leads by just 4.1 percent (2,998 versus 2,880). Even there, the desktop part holds the edge.

The 245KF also leads in PassMark multi-thread by 29 percent (43,110 versus 33,429), in data encryption by 29.2 percent (33,381 versus 25,845), and in random string sorting by 38.7 percent (55,206 versus 39,814). Prime number finding shows a 27.6 percent gap (416 versus 326), while floating-point math sits at 27 percent (131,546 versus 103,615). Every benchmark category, from rendering to encryption to sorting, favors the desktop chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel generations and target different platforms. The Core Ultra 5 245KF is an Arrow Lake-S desktop part from Core Ultra Series 2, released on 2024-10-23. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and carries a 125 TDP. The Core Ultra 7 366H is a Panther Lake mobile part from Core Ultra Series 3, released on 2026-01-04. It uses Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 TDP. The power envelope difference is substantial, and it directly explains much of the performance separation.

Both chips are built on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ. The 245KF is fabricated by TSMC, while the 366H is fabricated by Intel. The transistor counts are not directly comparable: the 245KF lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 366H does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

Core and thread counts also differ. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. Despite having two fewer cores, the 245KF delivers higher multi-core scores in every test, which points to clock speed and per-core efficiency advantages.

Cache configuration differs in the L2 and L3 levels. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The 245KF has 3 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. The 366H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The desktop part therefore holds more total cache, which helps in repeated data access patterns.

Memory support partially overlaps. Both support DDR5, and both use a dual-channel memory bus. The 245KF has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the 366H records 115.2 GB/s. The mobile chip also supports LPDDR5X, which the desktop part does not. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ: the 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are absent on the 245KF (listed as N/A), while the 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier; the 366H does not. The 245KF carries a launch MSRP of $294, while the 366H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Clock speeds favor the desktop part. The 245KF has a 4.20 GHz base clock and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The 366H runs at 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The base clock difference of 2.20 GHz is substantial, and the boost clock still favors the 245KF by 0.40 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the 245KF in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 245KF scores 36,647 versus 28,477 for the 366H, a 28.7 percent lead.

Q: Does the 366H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the 245KF has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite this, the 245KF wins all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 245KF supports 102.4 GB/s, while the 366H supports 115.2 GB/s. The mobile part has a higher memory bandwidth figure.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H is locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 14 for the 245KF, 16 for the 366H. Thread count: 14 versus 16. Base clock: 4.20 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 125 versus 25. Socket: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Arrow Lake versus Panther Lake. Codename: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. Generation: Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H).

Process node is identical at 3 nm, but foundry differs: TSMC for the 245KF, Intel for the 366H. Transistor count is only recorded for the 245KF (17,800 million); no figure exists for the 366H. Die size is only recorded for the 245KF (243 mm²); none for the 366H.

L2 cache: 3 MB per core on the 245KF, 2.5 MB per core on the 366H. L3 cache: 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. L1 cache is the same at 192 KB per core. Memory support: DDR5 only for the 245KF, DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the 366H. Memory bus is dual-channel for both. Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC support is false for both.

PCIe: Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the 245KF, Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the 366H. Integrated graphics: N/A versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2024-10-23 versus 2026-01-04. Launch MSRP: $294 for the 245KF, none recorded for the 366H. Multiplier unlocked: true versus false. Part numbers: SRQCY versus SA4R9Q9EL.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins every single benchmark in the database comparison. That includes all six Cinebench tests, all eleven PassMark tests, and the overall score. Its average benchmark score is 55,093, putting it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The 366H averages 41,263 and sits in the 87th percentile. The 245KF also outperforms its nearest rivals: it is 0.6 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, 1.9 percent ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, and only 1.5 and 1.6 percent behind the Intel Core 7 253PQE and Intel Core i9-14900HX respectively.

The 366H, despite losing every head-to-head test, still holds its own against its own rival set. It is 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, 0.7 percent ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, and 0.3 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X. So the 366H is a competitive mobile processor in its own class, even if it cannot match the desktop part.

Where the 366H has structural advantages, they do not translate into benchmark wins. It has more cores (16 versus 14), higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), integrated graphics, and a much lower TDP (25 versus 125). These features matter for mobile use cases: power efficiency, built-in display output, and compact systems. But in raw compute performance, the 245KF dominates.

The 245KF's wins are largest in data compression (40.5 percent), extended instructions (40.9 percent), and random string sorting (38.7 percent). These are throughput-heavy workloads that benefit from high clock speeds and large caches. The smallest win is physics at 4.1 percent, suggesting the 366H is relatively closer in that specific simulation workload.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the faster processor in every measured category. Its 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, combined with an average benchmark score of 55,093 versus 41,263, leave no ambiguity. The desktop part delivers 28.7 percent higher Cinebench scores across the board and leads by double digits in most PassMark tests.

The Core Ultra 7 366H should be evaluated on its own merits, not as a competitor to the 245KF. It belongs to a different market segment (mobile versus desktop), has a 25 TDP versus 125, and includes integrated graphics. For a laptop or compact mobile system, the 366H offers a reasonable balance: it ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs and trades nearly evenly with its nearest rivals. But anyone selecting between these two specific processors for raw compute work should choose the 245KF.

The 245KF also benefits from an unlocked multiplier, which allows tuning beyond its already higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB) and higher per-core L2 (3 MB versus 2.5 MB) support its lead in data-heavy workloads. The 366H counters with more cores, higher memory bandwidth, and support for LPDDR5X, but none of those advantages appear in the recorded benchmark scores.

The verdict from the data: the Core Ultra 5 245KF is the superior performer for any compute-intensive task, while the Core Ultra 7 366H serves a different purpose in mobile platforms where power draw and integrated graphics matter more than peak throughput. The 245KF's 91st percentile ranking versus the 366H's 87th percentile confirms the gap, and the 28.7 percent Cinebench deltas make the margin concrete.