Intel Core Ultra 7 266V vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Ultra X7 368H posts the higher score, leaving the Core Ultra 7 266V without a single win in the comparison set. The closest margin appears in the single-threaded PassMark tests, where the Ultra X7 368H leads by only 1.5 percent. That narrow gap suggests the two processors are nearly equivalent when workloads rely on a single core, but the separation grows dramatically as soon as multithreaded or math-heavy tasks enter the picture.

The Core Ultra 7 266V still holds relevance in its own performance class. Its average benchmark score of 23,297 places it in the 76th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals in that range include the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with an average score of 23,277 (0.1 percent behind), the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23,254 (0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V at 23,219 (0.3 percent behind), and the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23,167 (0.6 percent behind). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating that the 266V sits in a tightly packed performance band where small differences separate adjacent chips.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 40,518 and sits in the 87th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40,557 (0.1 percent ahead), the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40,585 (0.2 percent ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at 40,431 (0.2 percent behind), and the Intel Xeon 6507P at 40,426 (0.2 percent behind). The X7 368H thus competes in a higher tier, roughly 74 percent above the 266V in average benchmark score, a gap that reflects the substantial core and cache advantage of the larger part.

For workloads that depend on parallel execution, the Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multi-core results show 28,221 for the X7 368H versus 16,544 for the 266V, a 41.4 percent difference. PassMark multi-thread scores follow the same pattern: 32,956 versus 19,461, a 40.9 percent gap. Integer math shows the largest single delta in the entire set, with the X7 368H scoring 88,083 against 41,558 for the 266V, a 52.8 percent advantage. Floating-point math also favors the X7 368H heavily: 105,681 versus 56,923, a 46.1 percent gap.

The 266V remains competitive in single-threaded tasks, where its PassMark single-thread score of 3,943 trails the X7 368H's 4,005 by only 1.5 percent. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap (2,335 versus 3,984, a 41.4 percent difference), but that test appears to amplify the architectural differences between the two parts. In any case, the data does not show any benchmark category where the 266V surpasses the X7 368H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records an average benchmark score of 40,518, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V records 23,297. The X7 368H also sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs versus the 76th percentile for the 266V.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The X7 368H leads by 41.4 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28,221 versus 16,544) and by 40.9 percent in PassMark multi-thread (32,956 versus 19,461). The largest multi-core delta appears in PassMark integer math, where the X7 368H leads by 52.8 percent.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 7 266V faster in any benchmark?

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every test. The closest result is in PassMark single-thread, where the X7 368H leads by only 1.5 percent (4,005 versus 3,943).

Q: How does the 266V compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 266V is nearly tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H (0.1 percent ahead), Intel Core i9-11900F (0.2 percent ahead), Intel Core Ultra 9 288V (0.3 percent ahead), and AMD EPYC 4124P (0.6 percent ahead). All four rivals fall within 0.6 percent of the 266V's average score.

Q: How does the X7 368H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The X7 368H sits within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core 7 253PE and Intel Core 5 223PE, which are 0.1 percent and 0.2 percent ahead respectively. It is 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and the Intel Xeon 6507P.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra 7 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, exactly double the 266V's counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a uniform pattern of X7 368H victories, but the magnitude varies by workload type. The smallest margin appears in PassMark single-thread and single-thread (both recorded at 4,005 versus 3,943, a 1.5 percent delta). This near-parity in single-thread performance indicates that the per-core architecture of the 266V is not far behind that of the X7 368H, despite the latter being a newer and larger part.

Cinebench results all show a consistent 41.4 percent delta in favor of the X7 368H. R15 multi-core scores 2,844 versus 1,667; R15 single-core scores 401 versus 235; R20 multi-core scores 11,852 versus 6,948; R20 single-core scores 1,673 versus 980; R23 multi-core scores 28,221 versus 16,544; and R23 single-core scores 3,984 versus 2,335. The uniformity of that 41.4 percent figure across both single and multi-core Cinebench versions suggests a consistent architectural efficiency difference that scales with the core count.

PassMark results show wider variance in the deltas. Data compression favors the X7 368H by 40.2 percent (312,927 versus 187,050). Data encryption shows a 45.2 percent gap (25,228 versus 13,822). Extended instructions come in at 37.9 percent (25,669 versus 15,928). Prime number finding shows 40.5 percent (321 versus 191). Floating-point math shows 46.1 percent (105,681 versus 56,923). Integer math shows the largest gap at 52.8 percent (88,083 versus 41,558). Multi-thread shows 40.9 percent (32,956 versus 19,461). Physics shows 43.7 percent (2,857 versus 1,608). Random string sorting shows 39.9 percent (38,093 versus 22,905).

The integer math result stands out as the most lopsided comparison in the dataset. A 52.8 percent lead means the X7 368H delivers more than double the integer throughput of the 266V in that specific test. Floating-point math, at 46.1 percent, is close behind. These results point to the X7 368H's advantage being most pronounced in compute-heavy, arithmetic-intensive tasks, while more memory-bound or latency-sensitive workloads like single-threaded sorting show smaller gaps.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several foundational specifications. The Core Ultra 7 266V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Lunar Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture. The 266V is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC; the X7 368H is also on a 3 nm process, but the foundry is Intel instead of TSMC.

Core and thread counts differ by a factor of two. The 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both parts have the same L1 cache (192 KB per core) and L2 cache (2.5 MB per core), but the L3 cache differs: the 266V has 12 MB shared, while the X7 368H has 18 MB shared. Base clocks also differ: the 266V runs at 2.20 GHz and the X7 368H at 2.00 GHz, although both boost to 5.00 GHz.

Power envelopes are different as well. The 266V has a TDP of 17 watts, while the X7 368H has a TDP of 25 watts. This 8-watt difference reflects the higher core count and cache size of the larger part, though both are mobile-class processors. The sockets differ: the 266V uses Intel BGA 2833, while the X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540. Memory support is LPDDR5X for both, with dual-channel buses, but the X7 368H has a higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s for the 266V.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: the 266V carries an Arc 140V, while the X7 368H carries an Arc B390. Release dates also differ, with the 266V released on 2024-09-23 and the X7 368H released on 2026-01-04. The part numbers are SRPMMSRPMY for the 266V and SA4R7Q9EJ for the X7 368H. Both are active production parts in the mobile market segment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between the two chips is substantial. The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, which is the basis for the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation. The generation names in the database confirm this: the 266V is listed as "Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake)" and the X7 368H as "Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)".

The core design philosophy differs as well. Both parts use the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes, which suggests a similar core microarchitecture, but the X7 368H doubles the core count to 16 and expands the shared L3 from 12 MB to 18 MB. The 6 MB additional L3 cache gives the X7 368H more room for shared data across the 16 cores, which likely contributes to its advantage in multi-threaded benchmarks.

The process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry choice diverges. The 266V is fabricated by TSMC, while the X7 368H is fabricated by Intel. This foundry difference is notable because both chips are Intel designs but use different manufacturing partners for the same 3 nm process class. The database does not record transistor counts or die sizes for either part, so the physical implementation details remain unspecified.

The integrated graphics also reflect the architectural generation gap. The 266V uses Arc 140V graphics, while the X7 368H uses Arc B390. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores, so the comparison here is limited to the naming and the inference that the newer Panther Lake platform pairs with a newer graphics block.

The memory controller differs in bandwidth capability. Both support LPDDR5X in a dual-channel configuration, but the X7 368H achieves 153.6 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s for the 266V. That 17.1 GB/s difference aligns with the newer memory controller on the Panther Lake platform. The higher memory bandwidth likely helps the X7 368H in bandwidth-sensitive tests such as data compression and random string sorting, where it leads by roughly 40 percent.

The boost clocks match at 5.00 GHz for both, but the base clocks differ: 2.20 GHz for the 266V and 2.00 GHz for the X7 368H. The lower base clock on the X7 368H is offset by the higher core count and larger cache, and the benchmark results confirm that the X7 368H comes out ahead in every recorded test. The single-thread PassMark result being nearly tied (1.5 percent delta) suggests that the per-core architecture of the two chips is similar at equivalent clock speeds, with the X7 368H's advantage stemming primarily from its doubled core count and expanded cache rather than from a fundamentally faster core design.

The release timeline also separates the two. The 266V launched on 2024-09-23, while the X7 368H launched on 2026-01-04. That roughly fifteen-month gap places the Panther Lake part in a newer generation, which aligns with its higher average benchmark score and higher percentile ranking. The database shows no price information for either part, so the comparison rests entirely on measured performance and architectural specifications.