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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H represent two distinct design philosophies within Intel’s mobile and desktop lineup. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural and physical differences between the two parts dictate which processor is appropriate for a given workload. The 270K Plus is a high-power desktop part, while the 366H is a low-power mobile processor, and the benchmark results reflect this divide across nearly every test.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the dominant performer in the database, winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons against the 366H. Its average benchmark score of 93785 places it at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits within 2.1% of rivals like the AMD EPYC 4564P and AMD EPYC 9175F. The 366H, by contrast, averages 41263, ranking at the 87th percentile, and its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, is within 0.1% of its score. The 270K Plus delivers roughly 2.27 times the average benchmark score of the 366H, a decisive gap that makes it the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, and content creation workloads where raw throughput is the priority.

The 366H wins only two head-to-head tests, both in single-threaded Cinebench scenarios. It takes the R15 single-core test with a score of 405 versus 354, a 12.6% advantage, and the R23 single-core test with 4020 versus 2439, a 39.3% lead. This indicates the Panther Lake architecture in the 366H has a higher single-core efficiency per clock, but that advantage does not translate into overall multi-threaded or sustained compute superiority. For users who require maximum multi-core throughput, the 270K Plus is the only option between the two. For users constrained by power or chassis size, the 366H offers competitive single-thread performance with a drastically lower thermal envelope, though its multi-core scores lag considerably.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 3 nm process node but are built by different foundries. The 270K Plus uses TSMC as its foundry and carries the codename Arrow Lake Refresh, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2. The 366H is fabricated by Intel with the codename Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3. The 270K Plus is a desktop part with an Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540. The 270K Plus uses an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU iGPU, whereas the 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The core configurations differ substantially. The 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses Hyper-Threading based on these thread counts. The cache hierarchy also diverges: the 270K Plus has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 366H has 2.5 MB per core and 18 MB of shared L3. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 270K Plus has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H does not. The 270K Plus supports ECC memory, while the 366H does not.

The 270K Plus has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the 366H has 12. Both support dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, but the 366H adds LPDDR5X support alongside DDR5, while the 270K Plus lists only DDR5. The 270K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 270K Plus is built with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the transistor count and die size for the 366H are not recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the 270K Plus comes in data compression, where it scores 804322 against the 366H’s 327455, a 145.6% advantage. This is followed closely by random string sorting, where the 270K Plus scores 96945 versus 39814, a 143.5% lead. Extended instructions show a 136.1% gap, with scores of 63506 and 26901 respectively. Data encryption yields a 128.7% lead, with 59097 versus 25845. Floating point math shows a 121.5% difference, with 229491 versus 103615. Integer math follows at 110.3%, with 175986 versus 83695.

The multi-threaded PassMark score favors the 270K Plus by 105.1%, at 68574 versus 33429. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 104.5% lead, with 24461 versus 11960, and the R15 multi-core test shows a 131.9% lead, with 6656 versus 2870. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a smaller but still substantial 55.4% lead, with 44253 versus 28477. Prime number finding shows an 88.7% gap, with 615 versus 326. The physics test shows a 41.1% lead, with 4064 versus 2880. Single-thread PassMark favors the 270K Plus by 25.4%, with 5068 versus 4043.

The 366H claims two wins. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows its largest margin, 4020 versus 2439, a 39.3% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 12.6% lead, with 405 versus 354. The Cinebench R20 single-core test, however, goes the other way: the 270K Plus scores 3453 against 1688, a 104.6% lead. This inconsistency suggests the 366H’s single-core advantage is workload-specific and does not generalize across all single-threaded tests in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 125 watts versus 25 watts. The 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 366H uses Intel BGA 2540. The codenames are Arrow Lake Refresh and Panther Lake respectively. The foundry is TSMC for the 270K Plus and Intel for the 366H. The 270K Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the 366H has neither recorded.

L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the 270K Plus versus 2.5 MB per core for the 366H. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 for the 270K Plus, while the 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. ECC memory is supported by the 270K Plus but not the 366H. PCIe lanes are 20 for the 270K Plus and 12 for the 366H. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. The 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 366H does not. The launch date for the 270K Plus is 2026-03-10, while the 366H launched on 2026-01-04. The launch MSRP for the 270K Plus is $299, while the 366H has no recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers are SA4V6 and SA4R9Q9EL respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The 270K Plus scores 44253 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the 366H scores 28477. The 270K Plus leads by 55.4%.

Q: Which processor wins the single-core tests?

A: The 366H wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 405 versus 354, a 12.6% lead, and Cinebench R23 single-core with 4020 versus 2439, a 39.3% lead. The 270K Plus wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 3453 versus 1688, a 104.6% lead.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, placing it at the 96th percentile. The 366H has an average score of 41263, placing it at the 87th percentile.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The 270K Plus supports DDR5 only. The 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node. The 270K Plus is fabricated by TSMC, while the 366H is fabricated by Intel.