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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unequivocal. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the single exception being the Cinebench R23 single-core test, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H delivers a score of 4020 against 2020, a 49.8% advantage for the mobile part.

The most lopsided results come from the PassMark suite. In data compression, the 265K scores 665554 against 327455, a 103.3% lead. Extended instructions show a 102% gap (54333 versus 26901). Random string sorting favors the 265K by 100.3% (79752 versus 39814). Data encryption shows an 86.7% edge (48246 versus 25845). Floating point math is 83% higher (189629 versus 103615). These are not marginal differences; the desktop chip roughly doubles the mobile chip in several arithmetic and memory-intensive workloads.

Multi-threaded performance follows the same pattern. PassMark multithread scores 58594 for the 265K versus 33429 for the 366H, a 75.3% delta. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 5020 against 2870, a 74.9% gap, and Cinebench R20 multicore repeats that exact 74.9% delta (20918 versus 11960). Integer math is 71.1% higher (143242 versus 83695). Prime number finding shows a 50.6% edge (491 versus 326). Physics simulation in PassMark is 29.5% higher (3731 versus 2880).

The Cinebench R23 multicore test narrows the gap to 25.9% (35850 versus 28477), which indicates that the newer Panther Lake architecture in the 366H scales more efficiently as thread count grows relative to the Arrow Lake design. Single-thread PassMark tests still favor the 265K by 21.9% (4928 versus 4043), and the Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 74.8% edge (708 versus 405). The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a 74.9% edge (2953 versus 1688).

The overall database averages confirm the hierarchy: the 265K posts an average benchmark score of 70879 against 41263 for the 366H, a 71.8% difference. The 265K sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the 366H sits at the 87th percentile. The nearest rival to the 265K is the Intel Xeon 6511P, which scores 71051, just 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-14700KF scores 70163, 1% lower. The 366H trades blows with 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% higher). In other words, the 265K competes in the upper echelon of desktop processors, while the 366H sits at the top of the mobile range but far below desktop flagship territory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35850, which is 25.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 28477.

Q: Does the mobile chip win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins the Cinebench R23 single-core test with 4020 points, a 49.8% advantage over the 265K's 2020 points.

Q: How large is the gap in PassMark data compression?

A: The 265K scores 665554 versus 327455, a 103.3% lead, meaning it completes more than double the work in the same time.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 265K averages 70879 across all recorded benchmarks, while the 366H averages 41263, a 71.8% difference.

Q: How do the two compare to their closest rivals in the database?

A: The 265K is within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6511P (71051) and 1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700KF (70163). The 366H is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376) and 0.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215).

Q: Which chip has the higher single-thread PassMark score?

A: The 265K scores 4928, which is 21.9% higher than the 366H's 4043.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake-H) on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Both use 3 nm lithography, but the fabrication sources differ.

Core counts diverge sharply. The 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases.

Cache configurations differ per level. Both chips have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 265K versus 2.5 MB per core on the 366H. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the 265K versus 18 MB on the 366H. The desktop part has substantially more aggregate cache, which contributes to its dominance in data-heavy PassMark tests.

The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the 265K: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list these figures for the 366H. The 265K is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540. The 265K has an unlocked multiplier, the 366H does not.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The mobile part's memory support includes both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the desktop part supports DDR5 only. Both run dual-channel memory. The 265K supports ECC memory; the 366H does not.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the first distinguishing field: 20 cores and 20 threads for the 265K versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 366H. Base clocks differ dramatically: 3.90 GHz for the 265K versus 2.00 GHz for the 366H. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The 265K carries a 125 W TDP, the 366H a 25 W TDP, reflecting the desktop versus mobile design targets.

Memory bandwidth favors the mobile chip slightly in raw throughput: 115.2 GB/s for the 366H versus 102.4 GB/s for the 265K, despite the desktop chip's larger cache and higher core count. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 265K provides 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the 366H provides 12 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The 265K supports ECC memory, the 366H does not. The 265K has an unlocked multiplier; the 366H is locked.

Release timing differs by just over a year: the 265K launched on 2024-10-23, the 366H on 2026-01-04. The 265K has a recorded launch MSRP of $394, while the 366H has no launch MSRP in the database. Both parts are marked as active in production.

The 265K's part number is SRQCW; the 366H's is SA4R9Q9EL. The 265K is listed in the Core Ultra Series 2, the 366H in Core Ultra Series 3. The 265K's generation field reads "Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake)", while the 366H's reads "Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H)".

Where Each One Wins

The 265K wins every multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads in the recorded data. Its 103.3% lead in data compression and 102% lead in extended instructions point to workloads involving large in-memory datasets, encryption, and SIMD-heavy code. The 71.1% integer math advantage and 83% floating point math advantage make it the clear pick for scientific computing, video encoding, compilation, and any batch processing that can use all 20 cores. The 29.5% physics score advantage indicates better performance in simulation and game-physics workloads. The 21.9% single-thread PassMark edge also gives it the lead in general desktop responsiveness and lightly threaded applications.

The 366H has exactly one recorded victory: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4020 versus 2020. That 49.8% margin suggests the Panther Lake core design has a significantly higher per-clock single-thread capability in that specific rendering workload, or that the mobile chip's boost behavior favors that test. However, the 366H loses the Cinebench R15 single-core test by 74.8% and the R20 single-core test by 74.9%, so the R23 result is an outlier rather than a consistent pattern. The 366H also wins in memory bandwidth specification at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which could benefit certain memory-bound mobile workloads, though that advantage does not translate into any recorded benchmark win outside the single R23 test.

The 366H's 25 W TDP and mobile BGA 2540 socket place it in thin-and-light laptops, where the 265K's 125 W TDP and Socket 1851 cannot physically fit. The 265K's 94th percentile ranking versus the 366H's 87th percentile ranking summarizes the overall standing, but the 366H's lower power envelope and newer Panther Lake architecture make it the only one of the two that appears in portable systems.

The Verdict

The data supports a direct conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the faster processor in nearly every recorded metric. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 71.8% higher average benchmark score, and ranks 7 percentile points higher in the global database. The 103.3% data compression lead and 102% extended instructions lead are the kind of margins that define workstation-class throughput. The 265K also carries a $394 launch MSRP, an unlocked multiplier, ECC support, and 20 Gen 5 lanes, making it the appropriate choice for a desktop build that prioritizes compute density.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is not without merit. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4020 beats the 265K by 49.8%, a result that suggests the Panther Lake core architecture has real single-thread potential in specific rendering tasks. Its 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the desktop part's 102.4 GB/s. Its 25 W TDP and 16-core configuration fit mobile chassis, and its 87th percentile ranking places it among the stronger mobile processors in the database, within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X.

The choice depends entirely on the use case. A desktop user running multi-threaded production workloads should select the 265K, which delivers roughly double the performance in data compression and extended instructions, and a 75.3% multithread advantage. A laptop buyer who needs a capable mobile processor and can accept the 366H's lower absolute performance should select the 366H, which is the only one of the two that fits a mobile socket and provides the newer Panther Lake architecture, Intel Xe3 graphics, and LPDDR5X memory support. The 265K cannot be installed in a laptop, and the 366H cannot be installed in a desktop, so the form factor constraint alone decides most real-world purchases. Within those constraints, the 265K is the performance king, the 366H is the efficiency-focused mobile option, and the 49.8% single-core Cinebench R23 result for the 366H is the one statistical bright spot for the mobile part.