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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 265T leads by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How much faster is the 265T in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The 265T scores 31,558 points versus 28,477 points for the 366H. That is a 10.8% advantage for the 265T in multi-core rendering.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the 366H wins?

A: Yes. The 366H wins PassMark physics with a score of 2,880 versus 2,391, a 17% advantage. It also edges out the 265T in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 326 versus 322, a 1.2% lead.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The 265T scores 4,338 in PassMark single-thread, which is 7.3% higher than the 366H's 4,043. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 265T scores 4,455 versus 4,020, a 10.8% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 265T has an average benchmark score of 47,697, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The 366H has an average score of 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The 265T supports DDR5 only. The 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 366H also shows a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 265T.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. Both processors use the same 3 nm node, but the manufacturing source differs: TSMC for the 265T, Intel for the 366H.

The 265T is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540. This market segment difference drives several design choices. The 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads with no hyperthreading, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. The 265T offers a larger L2 cache of 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the 366H. The shared L3 cache also differs significantly: 30 MB on the 265T versus 18 MB on the 366H. Both share the same L1 cache size of 192 KB per core.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 366H supports a wider memory interface, accepting DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the 265T is limited to DDR5. The 265T provides more PCIe lanes: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes on the 366H. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The 265T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 366H has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz but a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 265T carries a 35 W TDP, while the 366H is rated at 25 W TDP. The 265T was released on January 6, 2025; the 366H followed on January 4, 2026. The 265T includes a launch MSRP of $384, while the 366H has no recorded launch MSRP. The 265T has a part number of SRQCS, and the 366H has a part number of SA4R9Q9EL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a broad dominance for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T across most workloads, but not uniformly. Of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the 265T wins 15, while the 366H wins 2.

The largest margin for the 265T appears in PassMark integer math, where it scores 104,943 versus 83,695, a 25.4% advantage. Floating-point math follows closely: 129,817 versus 103,615, a 25.3% lead. These two results indicate that the 265T delivers substantially stronger arithmetic throughput, likely helped by its higher core count and larger caches.

In data encryption, the 265T scores 29,687 versus 25,845, a 14.9% lead. Data compression shows a 13% advantage, with the 265T scoring 370,158 versus 327,455. Random string sorting is 11.5% faster on the 265T, at 44,400 versus 39,814. The multithread score for PassMark is 37,084 versus 33,429, a 10.9% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a 7.3% margin, 4,338 versus 4,043. Extended instructions are 6.3% higher on the 265T, at 28,609 versus 26,901.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 265T scores 3,180 versus 2,870, a 10.8% lead. Single-core in R15 is 449 versus 405, also a 10.9% margin. R20 multi-core is 13,254 versus 11,960, a 10.8% lead, and R20 single-core is 1,871 versus 1,688, again 10.8%. R23 multi-core is 31,558 versus 28,477, a 10.8% margin, and R23 single-core is 4,455 versus 4,020, also 10.8%. Across all Cinebench versions, the 265T holds a stable 10.8% to 10.9% advantage, indicating that the multi-core and single-core gains scale similarly.

The 366H claims two wins. The first is PassMark physics, where it scores 2,880 versus 2,391, a 17% lead. This is a notable outlier, since the 265T wins most other compute-heavy tests. The second win is PassMark find prime numbers, a narrow 1.2% margin, with the 366H scoring 326 versus 322. These two results suggest that the 366H has specific strengths in certain integer workloads and physics simulation, despite losing the overall average benchmark comparison.

The average benchmark score for the 265T is 47,697, while the 366H averages 41,263. The 265T sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and the 366H sits in the 87th percentile. The 265T's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, with an average score of 47,527, a 0.4% difference. The 366H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with an average score of 41,215, a 0.1% difference.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads; the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 265T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The 265T has a TDP of 35 W; the 366H has a TDP of 25 W.

The socket and market segment differ completely: the 265T uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540 for mobile. The architecture names differ: Arrow Lake for the 265T, Panther Lake for the 366H. The codenames also differ: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. The foundry differs: TSMC for the 265T, Intel for the 366H.

Cache levels differ. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 265T versus 2.5 MB per core on the 366H. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared on the 265T versus 18 MB shared on the 366H. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core.

Memory support differs: the 265T supports DDR5 only, while the 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 366H at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s on the 265T. PCIe lanes differ: 20 Gen 5 lanes on the 265T versus 12 Gen 5 lanes on the 366H. Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the 265T versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the 366H.

The release dates differ by roughly one year. The 265T launched on January 6, 2025; the 366H launched on January 4, 2026. The 265T has a launch MSRP of $384; the 366H has no recorded launch MSRP. The transistor count and die size are recorded for the 265T (17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size), but no such data exists for the 366H. Both processors are active in production, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack ECC memory support.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T as the stronger processor in raw compute performance. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, often by double-digit margins. Its 25.4% lead in integer math and 25.3% lead in floating-point math are the most pronounced gaps. The consistent 10.8% to 10.9% advantage across all Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance edge in both single-core and multi-core rendering.

The 366H does not fall far behind in most tests. The 10.8% Cinebench margins are meaningful but not overwhelming. The 366H actually wins in physics by 17% and in prime number finding by 1.2%, which shows that its architecture has specific strengths. Its higher base clock of 2.00 GHz and higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s may contribute to these wins.

For desktop users who prioritize multi-threaded compute, rendering, and integer-heavy workloads, the 265T is the clear choice from the recorded data. It also offers more PCIe lanes (20 versus 12), a larger L3 cache (30 MB versus 18 MB), and a higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz). The 265T holds a higher average benchmark score of 47,697 versus 41,263, and a higher percentile ranking of 90 versus 87.

For mobile or power-constrained scenarios, the 366H has advantages. It operates at a lower TDP of 25 W versus 35 W, supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, and delivers a higher memory bandwidth. It also has a higher base clock of 2.00 GHz, which may help in short bursts of lightly threaded work. The 366H's physics win by 17% suggests it handles simulation-style workloads well despite losing the overall average.

The 265T's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, with a 0.4% difference in average score. The 366H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with a 0.1% difference. These figures place both processors in similar competitive tiers relative to their respective markets, but the 265T occupies a higher absolute performance tier.

Users with a desktop socket and a need for maximum compute throughput should select the 265T based on the benchmark record. Users with a mobile platform, a tighter thermal envelope, or a need for LPDDR5X support should select the 366H, accepting the lower average score and lower multi-core performance in exchange for a lower TDP and broader memory compatibility. The data does not show a single winner across all criteria; the choice depends on the target platform and workload mix.