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

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the outright performer across every benchmark in the database. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests against the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, with an average benchmark score of 71910 versus 41263. The 265KF sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the 366H lands at the 87th percentile. For workloads that demand raw compute, the 265KF is the clear choice; the 366H is the better fit for systems where power limits and integrated graphics matter, given its 25 W TDP and Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The 265KF is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, 20 cores, and a 125 W TDP, while the 366H is a mobile chip with 16 cores, a 25 W TDP, and a locked multiplier. The 265KF launched at $379 MSRP, while the 366H has no recorded launch price. The performance gap is not subtle: in multi-core Cinebench R23, the 265KF scores 49736 against 28477 for the 366H, a 74.7% delta. Single-core tests show a similar story, with the 265KF at 7021 versus 4020 in Cinebench R23 single-core, also a 74.7% delta.

The 366H belongs in thin-and-light laptops or compact mobile workstations where its 2.00 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock are sufficient, and where the integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics eliminates the need for a separate GPU. The 265KF belongs in desktop towers with a discrete graphics card, since it has no integrated graphics. The benchmark record shows no scenario where the 366H wins, so the choice is strictly between desktop performance and mobile integration.

Where Each One Wins

The 265KF wins every category in the benchmark set. The largest margins are in data compression (103.6% ahead), extended instructions (102.6% ahead), and random string sorting (100.3% ahead). These are heavily parallel workloads, and the 265KF's 20 cores versus 16 cores, combined with higher clock speeds, produce decisive advantages. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance, where the 265KF leads by 21.9% in Passmark single-thread (4928 versus 4043), still a substantial gap.

The 366H shows no benchmark wins, but its strengths are structural rather than score-based. It draws just 25 W, which is one-fifth of the 265KF's 125 W TDP. That allows the 366H to operate in systems without active desktop cooling solutions. The 366H also includes integrated graphics, so it can run display output without an add-in card. The 265KF requires a separate GPU, as its integrated graphics field is listed as N/A.

For multi-threaded rendering, the 265KF is the only rational pick. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show the same 74.7% lead in multi-core tests. The 265KF scores 5013, 20889, and 49736 respectively, against the 366H's 2870, 11960, and 28477. For physics simulation, the 265KF leads by 26.1% (3633 versus 2880), the narrowest multi-core margin in the data, suggesting the 366H's per-core efficiency is respectable but not enough to offset the clock and core deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different series and architectures. The 265KF is part of Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-S), while the 366H is Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture (codename Panther Lake-H). Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: the 265KF uses TSMC, and the 366H uses Intel's own fabs.

The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. The 265KF's base clock is 3.90 GHz with a 5.50 GHz boost, whereas the 366H runs at 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The desktop chip has a 125 W TDP; the mobile chip has a 25 W TDP. The 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, confirming the former is socketed and the latter is soldered.

Cache layouts differ in L2 and L3. Both have 192 KB L1 per core. The 265KF has 3 MB L2 per core and 30 MB shared L3. The 366H has 2.5 MB L2 per core and 18 MB shared L3. The 265KF reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the 366H has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Memory support is similar but not identical. Both support dual-channel memory. The 265KF supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the 265KF has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 366H has Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core benchmarks?

A: The 265KF is faster. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 7021 versus 4020 for the 366H, a 74.7% difference. Passmark single-thread shows 4928 versus 4043, a 21.9% lead.

Q: Does the 366H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 265KF has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The 265KF has a 125 W TDP, while the 366H has a 25 W TDP. The 366H is designed for mobile systems with much lower power envelopes.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 265KF boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz. The 265KF also has a higher base clock at 3.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The 265KF has an unlocked multiplier (the "KF" suffix indicates this), while the 366H has a locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta in the entire comparison is in Passmark data compression, where the 265KF scores 666589 against 327455, a 103.6% lead. That is more than double the mobile chip's throughput. Passmark extended instructions shows a 102.6% lead (54513 versus 26901), and random string sorting is 100.3% ahead (79735 versus 39814). These three tests are all strongly parallel and memory-dependent, and the 265KF's higher L3 cache (30 MB versus 18 MB) and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, though the latter has higher peak bandwidth, the former has more cache) combine with its core count advantage.

In Cinebench tests, the deltas are consistent at 74.7% for both multi-core and single-core across R15, R20, and R23. The 265KF's R23 multi-core score of 49736 is 74.7% higher than the 366H's 28477. Single-core R23 shows 7021 versus 4020, also 74.7%. This consistency suggests the clock speed difference (5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz boost) and architectural efficiency are the main factors, not just core count.

Passmark multithread shows a 75.1% lead (58518 versus 33429), closely matching the Cinebench multi-core deltas. Passmark integer math is 71.3% ahead (143351 versus 83695), and floating-point math is 82.8% ahead (189431 versus 103615). Data encryption is 86.5% ahead (48198 versus 25845). The narrowest wins are in Passmark physics (26.1%, 3633 versus 2880) and Passmark single-thread (21.9%, 4928 versus 4043). The physics result indicates that even in less parallel workloads, the 265KF maintains a comfortable edge.

The 265KF's average benchmark score of 71910 places it among desktop workstation-class CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX (avg score 71797, delta 0.2%) and Intel Xeon 6724P (avg score 72396, delta -0.7%). The 366H's average of 41263 sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, delta 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376, delta -0.3%). The 265KF outperforms the 366H by 74.3% in average score, placing them in entirely different performance tiers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake-H |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $379 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SRQCU | SA4R9Q9EL |

The 265KF is a desktop part with a socketed design, 20 PCIe lanes, and a larger L3 cache. The 366H is a mobile part with a BGA package, 12 PCIe lanes, and integrated graphics. The 366H has a higher peak memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5. The 265KF has a higher TDP ceiling and an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ by over a year, with the 265KF launching in October 2024 and the 366H in January 2026. The database records the 265KF at the 94th percentile of all CPUs and the 366H at the 87th percentile, confirming the performance tier separation observed in the head-to-head results.