Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 records an average benchmark score of 64,640, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263, which places it in the 87th percentile.

Q: How do these two chips compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 leads in most multithreaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 42,216 against 28,477 for the 366H, a 48.2% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 49,682 versus 33,429, a 48.6% gap. The 366H wins only in Cinebench R20 multicore, where it scores 11,960 against 6,268.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core tests?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 wins the majority of single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5,960 versus 4,020 for the 366H, a 48.3% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 4,689 against 4,043, a 16% lead. The 366H wins only Cinebench R20 single-core, scoring 1,688 versus 884.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 provides 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do these processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Core Ultra 7 265 is manufactured by TSMC, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is manufactured by Intel.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 memory only. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two Intel processors. The Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the 366H wins only 2. The 265 delivers a 56.5% higher average benchmark score overall. For desktop workloads where sustained performance matters, the 265 is the stronger choice.

The Core Ultra 7 366H, despite being a newer generation part, does not outperform the 265 in most metrics. Its wins come exclusively in Cinebench R20 tests, both multicore and single-core. Those two results are anomalies within the broader data set. Every other benchmark, including Cinebench R15 and R23, PassMark math tests, compression, encryption, and physics, favors the 265.

The 366H has a lower TDP of 25 watts versus 65 watts for the 265. This makes the 366H suitable for mobile platforms where power draw is a primary constraint. The 265, with its higher TDP and desktop socket, is positioned for systems that can supply more power and dissipate more heat.

Users building a desktop workstation should choose the 265 based on its benchmark dominance. Users requiring a mobile processor with integrated graphics and lower power consumption should consider the 366H, but they should expect significantly lower performance in most compute tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap appears in PassMark floating point math. The 265 scores 172,776 against 103,615 for the 366H, a 66.7% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Integer math follows closely, with the 265 at 134,773 and the 366H at 83,695, a 61% lead. These results indicate the 265 has substantially higher raw arithmetic throughput.

Data compression shows a 59.7% gap, with 522,983 for the 265 versus 327,455 for the 366H. Random string sorting shows a 60.3% difference, with 63,833 versus 39,814. Data encryption shows a 56.5% gap, with 40,456 versus 25,845. Extended instructions show a 54.2% difference, with 41,478 versus 26,901. These four PassMark tests consistently place the 265 about 55-60% ahead.

Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 48.3% lead for the 265, scoring 4,255 against 2,870. R15 single-core shows a 48.1% lead, with 600 versus 405. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 48.2% lead, with 42,216 versus 28,477. R23 single-core shows a 48.3% lead, with 5,960 versus 4,020. PassMark multithread shows a 48.6% lead, with 49,682 versus 33,429. These results cluster around a consistent 48% advantage for the 265.

The smallest victory for the 265 comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 2,923 versus 2,880, a 1.5% difference. This is nearly a tie. PassMark single-thread shows a 16% lead for the 265, with 4,689 versus 4,043. Find prime numbers shows a 28.2% lead, with 418 versus 326.

The 366H wins both Cinebench R20 tests by exactly 47.6%. In R20 multicore, it scores 11,960 against 6,268. In R20 single-core, it scores 1,688 against 884. These two results contradict the pattern established by R15 and R23, where the 265 wins by roughly the same margin. This reversal suggests a workload-specific advantage for the 366H in the R20 test methodology.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ significantly. The 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both lack hyperthreading. The 265 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 265 runs higher at both ends.

Thermal design power differs by 40 watts. The 265 has a TDP of 65 watts, the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. This reflects their different market segments: desktop versus mobile. The 265 uses Intel Socket 1851, the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 265 is a socketed desktop part, the 366H is a mobile soldered part.

Memory support differs. The 265 supports DDR5 only, with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 366H has higher memory bandwidth despite fewer cores. PCIe lane counts differ as well. The 265 provides 20 CPU lanes of Gen 5, the 366H provides 12 lanes of Gen 5.

The 265 has a launch MSRP of $394 and was released on January 6, 2025. The 366H has no recorded launch MSRP and was released on January 4, 2026. The 265 has a part number of SRQCX, the 366H has SA4R9Q9EL. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The 265 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S. The 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake. The 265 is a desktop part, the 366H is a mobile part.

Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs. The 265 is fabricated by TSMC, the 366H by Intel. The 265 has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 366H has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache layouts differ. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 265 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 265 has 12 MB more L3 cache and 0.5 MB more L2 per core.

Integrated graphics differ. The 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 366H has the newer graphics architecture, which may provide better integrated graphics performance despite the CPU having fewer cores.

The 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S generation, the 366H uses the Panther Lake-H generation. The 265 is listed as Active in production status, as is the 366H. The 265 has a release date in early 2025, the 366H in early 2026. The 366H is one year newer but does not show a corresponding performance advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The 265 wins in every PassMark workload category except for the two Cinebench R20 tests. Its largest margins come in floating point math, integer math, random string sorting, and data compression. These are compute-heavy workloads that benefit from the 265's higher core count, larger cache, and higher clock speeds. For desktop users running simulations, data processing, encryption, or compilation tasks, the 265 is the clear choice.

The 265 also wins all Cinebench R15 and R23 tests, both multicore and single-core. This consistency across different Cinebench versions suggests the 265 has a stable performance advantage in rendering workloads. The 48% margin in R23 multicore is substantial and indicates the 265 can handle heavy multithreaded rendering without difficulty.

The 366H wins exactly two tests: Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core. In these tests, it scores 11,960 and 1,688 respectively, while the 265 scores 6,268 and 884. This 47.6% advantage is unusual because the 366H loses both R15 and R23 by similar margins. The R20 results may reflect specific optimization in the 366H architecture for that benchmark's workload pattern.

For mobile use, the 366H has clear advantages in power consumption. Its 25 watt TDP is 40 watts lower than the 265's 65 watt TDP. Combined with LPDDR5X memory support and the newer Xe3 integrated graphics, the 366H is designed for battery-powered laptops. Its performance is lower, but its power envelope is much smaller.

The 265 is the better processor for almost every measurable compute task. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the 366H's 87th percentile confirms this. The 366H exists for a different purpose: mobile efficiency rather than raw performance. The data shows no scenario where the 366H outperforms the 265 except in the two Cinebench R20 tests, which are insufficient to recommend it for desktop workloads.