Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 5 210H, 17 wins to 0. The margin is not uniform, ranging from a modest single-digit gap in one test to a dominant 83.7% lead in another. This is not a close contest by any measurable standard.

The largest gap appears in the passmark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 scores 326 versus 53 for the Core 5, a delta of 83.7%. This test is highly sensitive to architectural efficiency and memory throughput, and the result indicates a fundamental generational advantage rather than a simple clock or core count difference.

Cinebench results confirm the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 scores 28477 against 11830, a 58.5% advantage. The single-core R23 result shows 4020 versus 1771, a 55.9% lead. These are substantial margins that indicate the Core Ultra 7's newer architecture delivers superior per-thread performance alongside its higher core count.

The Cinebench R20 results show a similar story: multicore 11960 versus 6504 (45.6% ahead), singlecore 1688 versus 918 (45.6% ahead). Cinebench R15 shows 2870 versus 1757 multicore (38.8% ahead) and 405 versus 247 singlecore (39% ahead). The consistency across Cinebench versions suggests the performance gap is stable regardless of workload intensity.

Passmark testing reinforces the verdict. Floating point math shows 103615 versus 45057, a 56.5% advantage. Data encryption shows 25845 versus 12187, a 52.8% lead. Extended instructions show 26901 versus 13370, a 50.3% gap. Multithread performance shows 33429 versus 18252, a 45.4% difference. Physics testing shows 2880 versus 1040, a 63.9% margin. Random string sorting shows 39814 versus 23451, a 41.1% gap. Data compression shows 327455 versus 217805, a 33.5% lead.

The smallest margin is in single-thread performance. Passmark single thread shows 4043 versus 3539, a 12.5% gap. Integer math shows 83695 versus 61503, a 26.5% difference. Even in this closest comparison, the Core Ultra 7 maintains a clear advantage.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 7 sits at 41263, while the Core 5 sits at 24872. The Core Ultra 7 ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 ranks in the 77th percentile. These percentile positions confirm that the performance difference is meaningful in the broader context of the CPU market.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no workload category where the Intel Core 5 210H takes a win. Every benchmark, from compression to encryption, from integer math to physics, favors the Core Ultra 7. This is a comprehensive sweep.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 7 leads by 12.5% in passmark single thread and by 55.9% in Cinebench R23 singlecore. The Cinebench singlecore margin is particularly notable because it reflects the architectural efficiency of the Panther Lake design, not just core count.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 7's 16 cores versus 8 cores provides a structural advantage. The R23 multicore score of 28477 is 140% higher than the Core 5's 11830. The passmark multithread score of 33429 is 83% higher than 18252. These margins suggest that applications that scale with thread count will see substantial gains on the Core Ultra 7.

Memory-intensive workloads also favor the Core Ultra 7. Data compression shows a 33.5% lead, random string sorting shows a 41.1% lead. The Core Ultra 7's higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, a figure not available for the Core 5, likely contributes to these results.

Mathematical workloads show the largest gaps. Floating point math leads by 56.5%, prime number finding leads by 83.7%. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 7's execution units handle mathematical operations far more efficiently.

The Core 5 210H does not win anywhere. Its role is as the baseline against which the Core Ultra 7's superiority is measured. For users constrained to the Core 5's platform, the data shows it remains a functional mobile processor, but it cannot match the Core Ultra 7 in any recorded metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Core 5 210H uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-H, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake, specifically Panther Lake-H. This is not a refresh but a full architectural change.

The process node difference is significant. The Core 5 uses a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 uses a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel. The smaller process node typically enables higher transistor density and improved power efficiency, which helps explain the Core Ultra 7's performance advantages.

Core and thread configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Core Ultra 7 has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 relies on hyperthreading to reach 12 threads from 8 cores, while the Core Ultra 7 uses 16 physical cores without hyperthreading.

Cache structures are different. The Core 5 has L1 cache of 80 KB per core, L2 of 2 MB per core, and L3 of 12 MB shared. The Core Ultra 7 has L1 of 192 KB per core, L2 of 2.5 MB per core, and L3 of 18 MB shared. The larger per-core caches and bigger shared L3 give the Core Ultra 7 a data locality advantage.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 5 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Core Ultra 7 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Xe3 architecture represents a newer graphics generation, though benchmark data for graphics performance is not recorded in this database.

Memory support differs. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 7's memory bandwidth is recorded at 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5's memory bandwidth is not recorded.

PCIe support differs. The Core 5 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. The extra lanes on the Core Ultra 7 allow for more direct CPU-connected devices.

The Core 5's base clock is 2.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7's base clock is 2.00 GHz. Both boost to 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 achieves higher performance despite a lower base clock, indicating architectural efficiency rather than clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The socket differs. The Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable, so platform choice is determined by the processor.

TDP differs. The Core 5 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core Ultra 7 delivers substantially higher performance at a lower power envelope, a notable efficiency result.

Release dates differ. The Core 5 was released on 2024-12-17, while the Core Ultra 7 was released on 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra 7 is the newer product by roughly a year.

Launch MSRP differs. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $342. The Core Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The part numbers differ: SRQ6RQ5MN for the Core 5 and SA4R9Q9EL for the Core Ultra 7.

Both processors are in the mobile market segment, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Neither supports ECC memory.

The Core Ultra 7 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 5 has no recorded series. The generation field records the Core 5 as "Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh)" and the Core Ultra 7 as "Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H)."

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 scores 28477 versus 11830 for the Core 5, a 58.5% lead. In singlecore, the Core Ultra 7 scores 4020 versus 1771, a 55.9% lead.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process, while the Core 5 210H uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra 7 delivers higher performance at lower power consumption.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 5 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the boost clocks of each processor?

A: Both processors boost to 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The benchmark database records a comprehensive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. It wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 12.5% to 83.7%. Its average benchmark score of 41263 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5's 24872 average places it in the 77th percentile.

The Core Ultra 7's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. Its scores sit within 0.7% of these processors, indicating that it performs at the level of established high-end desktop and mobile parts.

The Core 5 210H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13620H, AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, Intel Core i7-11850H, and AMD Ryzen 5 7500F. Its scores sit within 0.4% of these parts, placing it in the upper-mid range of mobile processors.

Users selecting between these two processors should note the architectural gap. The Core Ultra 7 uses a 3 nm Panther Lake design with 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and a 25 watt TDP. The Core 5 uses a 10 nm Raptor Lake design with 8 cores, 12 MB of L3 cache, and a 45 watt TDP. The Core Ultra 7 is newer, faster, and more power efficient in every recorded metric.

The Core 5 210H remains a functional mobile processor, as its 77th percentile ranking shows, but it cannot compete with the Core Ultra 7. The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 is the superior choice for any workload measured in this database. Its performance advantages span single-threaded, multi-threaded, mathematical, and memory-intensive tasks, with no recorded counterexample.