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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins every single recorded test, 17 wins to 0. The margins, however, are not uniform. They range from a razor-thin 3.4% in the PassMark physics test to a commanding 56.9% in random string sorting. This distribution tells a story of a processor that is consistently faster, but the degree of advantage depends heavily on the workload type.

The most striking result is the consistency of the Cinebench deltas. Across all six Cinebench tests, from R15 single-core to R23 multi-core, the 265HX leads by exactly 42.7%. This uniformity suggests the advantage is largely architectural and clock-driven rather than scaling-related. The 265HX scores 4096 in Cinebench R15 multi-core against 2870 for the 366H, and 578 versus 405 in single-core. The pattern repeats in R20 (17069 vs 11960) and R23 (40642 vs 28477).

The PassMark suite reveals where the gap widens further. Data compression shows a 56.3% delta, with the 265HX posting 511817 against 327455. Floating-point math follows closely at a 56% delta (161605 vs 103615). Integer math sits at 51.7% (126954 vs 83695), and extended instructions at 51.4% (40741 vs 26901). The largest single delta is in random string sorting at 56.9% (62458 vs 39814), a test that often responds sharply to memory latency and cache capacity.

The narrowest victory is in the PassMark physics test, where the 265HX scores 2978 against 2880. That 3.4% gap is almost within measurement noise and indicates that the physics workload, likely more dependent on memory bandwidth or specific instruction paths, does not benefit from the 265HX's additional resources to the same degree. The multi-thread test shows a 43.5% delta (47985 vs 33429), while single-thread lands at 11.3% (4500 vs 4043). The single-thread gap is far smaller than the multi-thread gap, which aligns with the core count difference: the 265HX has 20 cores versus 16 for the 366H.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265HX scores 40642 compared to 28477 for the 366H, a 42.7% advantage. The same 42.7% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the single-core performance gap match the multi-core gap?

A: No, the single-core gap is smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 265HX leads by 42.7% (5737 vs 4020), but in PassMark single-thread the delta shrinks to 11.3% (4500 vs 4043). The PassMark physics test shows an even smaller 3.4% delta.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 265HX boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are 2.60 GHz and 2.00 GHz respectively.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?

A: The 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 265HX has an average benchmark score of 63173, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The 366H averages 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile. The 265HX's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-13790F, scores 63080 with a 0.1% delta, while the 366H sits 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 265HX supports DDR5 only, with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Despite the lower bandwidth, the 265HX outperforms the 366H in all recorded memory-sensitive tests.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the faster processor in every measured category, and in most categories the margin is substantial. The 42.7% delta in Cinebench tests across the board indicates that the 265HX provides a consistent, generation-defining leap in rendering performance. For anyone running CPU-bound creative workloads or compiling large projects, the 265HX is the objectively superior part.

The 366H, however, is not without a position. Its 25 TDP rating, against the 265HX's 55 TDP, suggests a fundamentally different design target. The 366H also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the 265HX does not. The 366H's 115.2 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the 265HX's 102.4 GB/s, and its 87th percentile standing still places it above the vast majority of CPUs. The 366H is the choice when power efficiency and memory flexibility take precedence over raw compute throughput.

For the buyer who needs maximum processing capability in a mobile form factor, the 265HX wins outright. For the buyer who prioritizes lower power draw and the ability to use LPDDR5X, the 366H offers a viable, if slower, alternative. The benchmark data does not equivocate: the 265HX is faster, and the only question is whether the 366H's efficiency profile justifies its performance deficit.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several core specifications. The 265HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads; the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ at 2.60 GHz for the 265HX versus 2.00 GHz for the 366H. Boost clocks differ at 5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

Power ratings are notably different: the 265HX has a 55 TDP, the 366H a 25 TDP. The 265HX is multiplier unlocked, the 366H is not. Memory support also differs: the 265HX supports DDR5 only, while the 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth favors the 366H at 115.2 GB/s against 102.4 GB/s for the 265HX.

PCIe lane counts differ, with the 265HX offering 20 lanes of Gen 5 and the 366H offering 12 lanes of Gen 5. The integrated graphics differ: the 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 265HX has a part number of SRVFH, the 366H is SA4R9Q9EL. Release dates are also distinct, with the 265HX launching earlier and the 366H later.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The 265HX is built on Arrow Lake, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The 366H uses Panther Lake, with the Panther Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC fabricates the 265HX, while Intel fabricates the 366H.

Cache layouts show clear divergence. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core for both. The L2 cache differs: the 265HX has 3 MB per core, the 366H has 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is substantially different, with the 265HX offering 30 MB shared against 18 MB shared for the 366H. The 265HX also has a documented transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the 366H has no transistor or die size data in the database.

The 265HX draws from the older Arrow Lake-HX design, which appears optimized for higher throughput at the cost of power. The 366H, as a Panther Lake part, targets a different balance, evidenced by its lower TDP and LPDDR5X support. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both are dual-channel designs. The 265HX's larger L3 cache and higher per-core L2 allocation likely contribute to its strong showing in cache-sensitive PassMark tests.

Where Each One Wins

The 265HX wins everywhere in the recorded data, but the magnitude of its wins varies. The largest edges are in PassMark data compression (56.3%), random string sorting (56.9%), floating-point math (56%), and integer math (51.7%). These are compute-heavy, memory-intensive workloads where the 265HX's 20 cores, larger cache, and higher clocks deliver outsized returns.

The 265HX also dominates all Cinebench tests at a uniform 42.7% delta. This consistency indicates that the rendering workloads scale directly with the core count and clock advantage. The 265HX's smallest win is in PassMark physics at 3.4%, a narrow margin that suggests the physics test does not fully exercise the 265HX's advantages.

The 366H's wins are not in raw benchmark scores but in design attributes. Its 25 TDP is less than half the 265HX's 55 TDP, making it the more power-efficient option. It supports LPDDR5X memory, which the 265HX cannot use. Its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is 12.5% higher than the 265HX's 102.4 GB/s, though this does not translate into a performance win in any recorded test. The 366H also uses 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 20 for the 265HX, which may matter for systems with fewer expansion needs.

For users whose workloads resemble the PassMark math and compression tests, the 265HX is the only rational choice. For users who prioritize power draw and memory type flexibility, the 366H offers those attributes, but the performance cost is steep: a 51.7% deficit in integer math and a 56.9% deficit in random string sorting. The data supports the 265HX as the performance leader, with the 366H positioned as the efficiency-oriented alternative.