Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H: the 270HX Plus wins every single benchmark in the comparison, with margins that range from 17.8% to 57.9%. The 270HX Plus delivers a 47.2% advantage across all Cinebench tests, while its average benchmark score of 61834 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The 366H, with an average score of 41263, sits in the 87th percentile, making this a clear performance tier separation rather than a close contest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus comes in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 163567 against 103615, a 57.9% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a substantial advantage in workloads that rely heavily on floating point calculations, such as scientific simulations and certain rendering tasks.

Cinebench results are uniform across all three versions. In Cinebench R15, the 270HX Plus scores 4224 multicore and 596 singlecore, versus 2870 and 405 for the 366H. Cinebench R20 shows 17603 against 11960 multicore and 2485 against 1688 singlecore. Cinebench R23 records 41913 versus 28477 multicore and 5917 versus 4020 singlecore. Every Cinebench test shows exactly a 47.2% delta, confirming that the performance gap scales consistently across single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark integer math shows a 46.3% advantage, with scores of 122449 and 83695. Data encryption shows the same 46.3% delta, at 37813 versus 25845. Extended instructions follow closely at 46%, with 39283 against 26901. Random string sorting shows a 50.8% lead, 60020 versus 39814, while data compression shows 493179 against 327455, a 50.6% advantage. Find prime numbers shows 482 versus 326, a 47.9% delta.

The smallest margin is in PassMark single thread, where the 270HX Plus scores 4764 versus 4043, a 17.8% lead. Even in this closest test, the 270HX Plus remains clearly ahead. PassMark multithread shows 48270 against 33429, a 44.4% delta, and physics shows 3843 versus 2880, a 33.4% delta.

The 270HX Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The 366H does not win a single test. For context, the 270HX Plus sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900K in average score, while the 366H is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which trails by only 0.3%. This places the two processors in entirely different competitive brackets.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different internal designs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, with the Panther Lake codename.

Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 270HX Plus is manufactured by TSMC and has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 366H is manufactured by Intel, and its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyperthreading, so core count equals thread count in both cases. The 270HX Plus also has higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the 366H.

Cache configurations differ in L2 and L3. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 270HX Plus has 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 366H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 270HX Plus thus provides more L2 per core and substantially more total L3.

Memory support also differs. The 270HX Plus supports DDR5 only, while the 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the 366H has a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 270HX Plus.

PCIe lane counts differ. The 270HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 270HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Power characteristics are notably different. The 270HX Plus has a TDP of 55 watts, while the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 270HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H does not. The 270HX Plus uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. Both processors are active in production and target the mobile market segment.

The release dates differ by roughly two months. The 366H was released on 2026-01-04, while the 270HX Plus was released on 2026-03-16.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the faster processor in every measured category. The 47.2% uniform lead across Cinebench tests indicates that the 270HX Plus has a structural performance advantage that scales with workload intensity, not just a single-test anomaly. Its 20 cores, higher clocks, and larger cache pool give it an edge that the 366H cannot offset despite its lower TDP and higher memory bandwidth.

The 366H does have legitimate advantages in the database, but they are not performance advantages. It consumes less power at 25 watts versus 55 watts, supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, and has a higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s. Its Intel Xe3 integrated graphics may be a newer generation, though the database provides no benchmark scores to confirm relative iGPU performance. For users who prioritize efficiency and memory flexibility, the 366H is the relevant choice.

However, for raw computational performance, the 270HX Plus is the clear pick. Its average benchmark score of 61834 places it in the 93rd percentile, and it sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13900KF, a desktop-class rival. The 366H, with its 87th percentile standing, does not approach that level. Users who need sustained multi-threaded throughput, high single-core speed, or encryption and compression throughput should select the 270HX Plus. Users who need lower power draw and LPDDR5X support should select the 366H.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

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

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh | Panther Lake |

| Foundry | TSMC | 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 | Gen 5, 12 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2026-03-16 | 2026-01-04 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the 270HX Plus in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The 270HX Plus scores 41913 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the 366H scores 28477, a 47.2% delta.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single thread, the 270HX Plus scores 4764 and the 366H scores 4043, a 17.8% delta. The Cinebench R23 singlecore test shows 5917 versus 4020, also a 47.2% delta.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The 366H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, which is higher than the 270HX Plus at 102.4 GB/s. The 366H also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, while the 270HX Plus supports DDR5 only.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the 270HX Plus is manufactured by TSMC while the 366H is manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The 270HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus delivers its strongest wins in floating point math with a 57.9% lead, followed by random string sorting at 50.8% and data compression at 50.6%. These results make it the clear choice for mathematically intensive workloads, data compression tasks, and any application that benefits from high core counts and large caches. Encryption and integer math both show a 46.3% advantage, reinforcing its dominance in security-related workloads and general integer processing. The 47.2% uniform Cinebench advantage across R15, R20, and R23 means it is also the better choice for rendering and content creation workloads that scale with multi-core performance.

The 366H does not win any benchmark, but it has recorded advantages in power efficiency and memory support. Its 25 watt TDP is less than half that of the 270HX Plus, making it the better fit for systems where thermal headroom and battery life matter more than peak performance. Its 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the 270HX Plus by 12.8 GB/s, and its support for LPDDR5X memory gives it broader memory compatibility for thin-and-light designs. The 366H also uses the Intel Xe3 integrated graphics, a newer generation than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics found in the 270HX Plus, though the database records no benchmark scores to quantify that advantage.

For users who need maximum computational throughput, the 270HX Plus is the only choice. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds the 93rd percentile ranking, and matches the Intel Core i9-13900K within 0.1% in average score. For users who prioritize lower power draw, memory bandwidth, and LPDDR5X support, the 366H is the relevant alternative. The performance gap between the two is substantial and consistent across every recorded test.