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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F or the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses Hyper-Threading, so core and thread counts are equal for each part.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile. The 265F also records a much higher average benchmark score of 64,438 versus 41,263 for the 366H.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the database?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F is most closely matched by the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3% faster), the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.6% faster), the AMD EPYC 7343 (0.4% slower), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.6% slower). The Core Ultra 7 366H is closest to the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.1% faster), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (0.3% slower), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (0.7% slower).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 memory only, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 366H also records a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 265F.

Q: Which processor includes an integrated GPU?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and a transistor count of 17,800 million. The chip fits into Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop market segment. Its cache configuration includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, with a TDP of 65 watts. It uses a Gen 5 PCIe interface with 20 lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H mobile variant. It is also built on a 3 nm process, but at Intel's own foundry. The database does not list a die size or transistor count for this part. It uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets the mobile market segment. Its cache structure includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, with a TDP of 25 watts. It uses a Gen 5 PCIe interface with 12 lanes.

The most immediate architectural difference is the core and thread topology. The 265F offers 20 cores and 20 threads, four more cores than the 366H's 16 cores and 16 threads. The L2 cache per core also differs, with the 265F holding 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the 366H. The L3 cache is substantially larger on the desktop part, 30 MB versus 18 MB. The 265F also has a higher boost clock by 0.50 GHz and a higher base clock by 0.40 GHz, which helps explain its single-thread advantage.

The 366H compensates in other areas. It supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, and its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s exceeds the 265F's 102.4 GB/s. The 366H also integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics, whereas the 265F has no integrated graphics at all. The 366H's lower 25 W TDP reflects its mobile design, while the 265F's 65 W TDP reflects a desktop part with more headroom. Both processors are locked, with the multiplier unlocked field set to false.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Core Ultra 7 366H, with a total of 17 wins. The margins vary considerably by workload, from a modest 10.1% in physics to a dominant 67.8% in floating point math.

In Cinebench tests, the 265F consistently outperforms the 366H by 47.4% across all six sub-tests. The R15 multicore score is 4,231 versus 2,870, and the R15 singlecore score is 597 versus 405. The R20 multicore result is 17,631 versus 11,960, with a singlecore score of 2,488 versus 1,688. In R23, the 265F posts 41,980 in multicore against 28,477, and 5,926 in singlecore against 4,020. The uniform 47.4% delta across every Cinebench test suggests a consistent per-core and multi-core advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results show a wider spread. The largest gap appears in floating point math, where the 265F scores 173,855 versus 103,615, a 67.8% advantage. Integer math also favors the desktop chip heavily, with 138,078 versus 83,695, a 65% delta. Data compression shows a 54.8% lead (507,018 versus 327,455), while random string sorting shows a 56.8% lead (62,439 versus 39,814). Data encryption is 52.7% ahead (39,468 versus 25,845), and extended instructions are 45.8% ahead (39,235 versus 26,901).

The smallest lead in the PassMark suite is in physics, where the 265F scores 3,172 versus 2,880, a 10.1% margin. This is the only head-to-head result below 17.5%. The single-thread PassMark score shows a 17.5% advantage, with 4,750 versus 4,043. The PassMark multithread score is 49,410 versus 33,429, a 47.8% lead. Find prime numbers shows a 27.6% gap, with 416 versus 326.

The data indicates that the 265F's advantage grows in workloads that stress floating point execution, compression, and sorting tasks. The physics result, while still a win for the 265F, is comparatively close, suggesting that the 366H's architecture narrows the gap in that specific workload.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 64,438 places it in the 93rd percentile, and it holds a 47.4% or greater lead across all Cinebench tests. The 366H, with an average score of 41,263 and an 87th percentile ranking, is competitive within its own mobile class but cannot match the desktop part in raw compute.

The 265F's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, AMD EPYC 7343, AMD EPYC 4464P, and Intel Core i9-13900KS, with deltas ranging from 0.6% slower to 0.6% faster. The 366H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, with deltas from 0.7% faster to 0.3% slower.

The choice between these two parts is defined by platform. The 265F is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, Socket 1851, and no integrated graphics. The 366H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, BGA 2540, and integrated Xe3 graphics. For a desktop build with a discrete GPU, the 265F offers substantially higher performance across the board. For a mobile system, the 366H provides the necessary integration and lower power envelope, though its performance ceiling is lower. The data does not support any scenario where the 366H outperforms the 265F in compute benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The TDP is 65 W for the 265F and 25 W for the 366H.

The socket differs: the 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The architecture and codename also differ, with the 265F using Arrow Lake and Arrow Lake-S, and the 366H using Panther Lake and Panther Lake. The 265F is fabricated at TSMC, while the 366H is fabricated at Intel, both on a 3 nm process. The 265F has a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors; the 366H has no listed die size or transistor count.

Cache specifications differ as well. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core, but the 265F has 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB on the 366H. Shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the 265F versus 18 MB on the 366H. Memory support differs: the 265F supports DDR5, while the 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s on the 265F versus 115.2 GB/s on the 366H. PCIe lanes are 20 on the 265F versus 12 on the 366H, both Gen 5. The 265F has no integrated graphics; the 366H has Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 265F has a launch MSRP of $379, while the 366H has no launch MSRP listed. Both have the multiplier locked.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins in all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its largest margins are in floating point math at 67.8%, integer math at 65%, and random string sorting at 56.8%. It also leads in data compression by 54.8% and data encryption by 52.7%. All six Cinebench tests show a consistent 47.4% advantage. The smallest win is in physics at 10.1%.

The 265F is therefore the appropriate choice for desktop workloads that demand high multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, compression, encryption, and heavy mathematical computation. Its 20 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and higher clock speeds drive these results. The lack of integrated graphics means a discrete GPU is required, but the Gen 5 PCIe interface with 20 lanes supports that configuration.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its strengths are contextual rather than absolute. It integrates Intel Xe3 Graphics, which removes the need for a separate GPU in a mobile system. It supports LPDDR5X memory, which the 265F cannot use. Its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s is higher than the 265F's 102.4 GB/s. Its 25 W TDP is less than half the 265F's 65 W TDP, making it suitable for power-constrained environments.

The 366H also has the advantage of a more recent release date, listed as 2026-01-04 compared to the 265F's 2025-01-06. The 366H's nearest rival set includes the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, a desktop part from a previous generation, which the 366H trails by only 0.3%, indicating that the mobile chip punches near desktop-class levels from an older generation. Still, within the direct comparison, every recorded metric favors the 265F.