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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is defined by a stark split: the 265H dominates the majority of workload metrics, while the 366H secures a few decisive victories in specific rendering and physics tests. Across the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the 265H wins 12, while the 366H takes 5. The aggregate performance picture is close, with the 265H averaging 41621 points and the 366H averaging 41263 points, a difference of less than 1%. Yet that average hides the dramatic divergence in individual workloads.

The most significant win for the 265H comes in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 4334 against 4043 for the 366H, a 7.2% advantage. This is reinforced by a similar margin in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the 265H leads 1712 to 1688, a 1.4% edge. In floating-point math, the 265H is notably stronger, scoring 109123 versus 103615, a 5.3% lead. The 265H also wins in integer math (85479 vs 83695, 2.1%), data compression (334711 vs 327455, 2.2%), random string sorting (40742 vs 39814, 2.3%), and prime number finding (335 vs 326, 2.8%). Its advantages in data encryption (26005 vs 25845, 0.6%) and multithread (34027 vs 33429, 1.8%) are narrower but consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 265H posts 2989 versus 2870, a 4.1% lead, and in R20 multi-core it manages 12131 versus 11960, a 1.4% margin.

The 366H, however, strikes back with two overwhelming results in the Cinebench R23 suite. In single-core R23, it scores 4020 versus 2080 for the 265H, a staggering 48.3% advantage. In multi-core R23, it posts 28477 versus 19940, a 30% lead. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they reveal a fundamental difference in how the two chips handle sustained rendering workloads. The 366H also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test (405 vs 307, a 24.2% margin) and the PassMark physics test (2880 vs 2497, a 13.3% margin). Its only other win is in extended instructions, where it edges ahead 26901 to 26805, a 0.4% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The 265H is the clear choice for general-purpose computing and mixed integer workloads. Its consistent leads across PassMark's math, compression, sorting, and encryption tests suggest it maintains a smoother performance curve across a broad range of everyday tasks. The 7.2% lead in single-thread PassMark is particularly telling for responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The 265H's wins in both R15 and R20 multi-core tests, though modest, indicate that it handles older rendering benchmarks and legacy multi-threaded software slightly better. Its advantage in floating-point math (5.3%) also points to strength in scientific and analytical computations that rely on FPU throughput.

The 366H is specialized for modern rendering engines and physics simulation. The R23 results are decisive: a 30% multi-core win and a 48.3% single-core win demonstrate that this chip is built to excel in current-generation Cinebench workloads, which are more representative of contemporary content creation and 3D rendering tasks. The 13.3% lead in PassMark physics further supports its suitability for gaming physics and simulation workloads. The 366H's strong R15 single-core score (405 vs 307) also indicates that in bursty, short-duration single-threaded tasks, it can pull well ahead of the 265H, even though the latter wins the longer-running R20 single-core test.

So the split is clear: the 265H wins efficiency across a wide spread of standard benchmarks, while the 366H wins where sustained single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering performance matters most. For a user whose primary load is Cinebench-style rendering, the 366H is the superior choice; for general productivity and mixed workloads, the 265H holds the edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 41621, compared to 41263 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. The 265H also ranks at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the 366H ranks at the 87th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is significantly faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 28477 against 19940 for the 265H. This represents a 30% advantage for the 366H.

Q: Which chip has the better single-threaded PassMark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4334, which is 7.2% higher than the 366H's score of 4043.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: For the 265H, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core 7 251TE (average score 41650, 0.1% lower), the Intel Core i7-14650HX (41576, 0.1% higher), and the Intel Core i7-12850HX (41779, 0.4% lower). For the 366H, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, 0.1% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, 0.1% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376, 0.3% lower).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is higher than the 366H's boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins 5.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread count (16 cores, 16 threads), but they differ notably in clock speeds, power, socket, and memory bandwidth. The 265H has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the 366H has a lower base of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 4.80 GHz. The 265H carries a higher TDP of 28 watts, versus 25 watts for the 366H. The socket also differs: the 265H uses Intel BGA 2049, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Cache configurations diverge as well. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the 265H versus 2.5 MB per core for the 366H. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB for the 265H and 18 MB for the 366H. Memory bandwidth is another differentiator: the 366H supports 115.2 GB/s, while the 265H supports 102.4 GB/s. The 265H supports ECC memory, while the 366H does not. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the 265H offering 8 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and the 366H offering 12 Gen 5 lanes.

The integrated graphics are different: the 265H features Arc Graphics 140T, while the 366H features Intel Xe3 Graphics. Additionally, the part numbers differ (SRQAQ for the 265H, SA4R9Q9EL for the 366H), and the release dates are different, with the 265H released earlier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The 265H is built on the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-H) as part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture (codename Panther Lake) as part of the Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: the 265H is made by TSMC, while the 366H is made by Intel.

The generations are distinct: the 265H is classified as Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-H), and the 366H is classified as Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). The cache hierarchy differences already noted—L2 per core and L3 shared—reflect architectural decisions that likely contribute to the benchmark divergences. The 265H's larger L3 cache (24 MB vs 18 MB) may explain its edge in data compression and integer math, while the 366H's higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s) could support its superior sustained rendering performance.

Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 366H's integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics) are a newer generation than the 265H's Arc Graphics 140T, though benchmark data for the iGPU is not included. The production status is Active for both, and both target the mobile market segment. The 366H has more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8), which may benefit systems with multiple high-speed devices. Overall, the 265H leans on a TSMC process with more cache, while the 366H uses Intel's own fabrication with higher memory bandwidth and a newer architecture, yielding its distinctive rendering performance profile.