Intel Core Ultra 7 366H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a sharply split picture between these two 16-core mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H takes the majority of wins, 12 out of 17 recorded tests, but the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H secures the most dramatic victories, particularly in Cinebench workloads.

The single largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the Ultra 7 366H in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4020 against the Ultra 9 285H's 2129.5, a lead of 88.8%. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a near doubling of performance in a heavily used rendering benchmark. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 28477 versus 20781.5 for the Ultra 9 285H, a 37% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the Ultra 7 366H with 405 versus 313, a 29.4% lead. PassMark physics favors the Ultra 7 366H as well, 2880 against 2513, a 14.6% margin. The fifth win for the Ultra 7 366H comes in PassMark extended instructions, though the margin there is slim at 0.4%, with scores of 26901 and 26794.

The Ultra 9 285H counters with consistent, if smaller, wins across most other workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it posts 3177.5 versus 2870, a 9.7% lead. Cinebench R20 shows a 2% edge for the Ultra 9 285H in both multi-core, 12201 against 11960, and single-core, 1722 against 1688. PassMark single-thread performance belongs to the Ultra 9 285H, 4415 versus 4043, an 8.4% margin. PassMark multi-thread goes to the Ultra 9 285H by a narrower 2.2%, 34171 against 33429. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 285H ahead at 335859 versus 327455, a 2.5% gap. Floating-point math favors the Ultra 9 285H at 109190 versus 103615, a 5.1% difference. Integer math, encryption, prime number finding, and random string sorting all go to the Ultra 9 285H by margins between 1.1% and 2.7%.

The overall average benchmark score also favors the Ultra 7 366H, which records 41263 against the Ultra 9 285H's 38312. The Ultra 7 366H sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra 9 285H sits at the 86th. The nearest rival to the Ultra 7 366H is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with an average score of 41215, a delta of 0.1%, a very close grouping. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X trails by 0.3%. For the Ultra 9 285H, the nearest rival is the Intel Core 9 270H at 38335, a delta of -0.1%, with the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 0.1% and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 0.2% also nearby.

Architecture Differences

These two processors belong to different generations and microarchitectures despite sharing a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is built on Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, and uses the Panther Lake-H generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arrow Lake architecture, part of Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake-H generation. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm node, but the foundries differ. The Ultra 7 366H is fabricated by Intel itself, while the Ultra 9 285H is fabricated by TSMC. This foundry difference is a notable architectural divergence between the two parts.

Both processors have 16 cores and 16 threads, so there is no core count advantage on either side. The cache hierarchy differs in the L2 and L3 levels. The Ultra 7 366H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 285H has 3 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The larger L3 on the Ultra 9 285H, 24 MB versus 18 MB, provides more shared cache for workloads that benefit from it.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 9 285H has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Despite the higher clocks on the Ultra 9 285H, the Ultra 7 366H delivers superior Cinebench R23 results, suggesting architectural efficiency differences that override the raw clock advantage.

The thermal design power differs significantly. The Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25, while the Ultra 9 285H has a TDP of 45. This 20-point gap indicates the Ultra 9 285H is designed for a higher power envelope. The sockets also differ, with the Ultra 7 366H using Intel BGA 2540 and the Ultra 9 285H using Intel BGA 2049, meaning they are not socket-compatible.

Memory support is the same type, DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with dual-channel memory buses. The memory bandwidth differs, however. The Ultra 7 366H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285H has 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 285H supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 7 366H does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are different as well, with the Ultra 7 366H using Intel Xe3 Graphics and the Ultra 9 285H using Arc Graphics 140T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, which is 37% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H's 20781.5.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not.

Q: What are the TDP values for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a TDP of 45.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263, compared to 38312 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H:

• Series: Core Ultra Series 3 versus Core Ultra Series 2
• Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 2.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.40 GHz
• TDP: 25 versus 45
• Socket: Intel BGA 2540 versus Intel BGA 2049
• Architecture: Panther Lake versus Arrow Lake
• Codename: Panther Lake versus Arrow Lake-H
• Generation: Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) versus Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 18 MB shared versus 24 MB shared
• Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 12 lanes versus Gen 5, 8 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus Arc Graphics 140T
• Release date: 2026-01-04 versus 2025-01-12
• Launch MSRP: $651 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H; no launch MSRP recorded for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H
• Part number: SA4R9Q9EL versus SRQAL

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in rendering and physics workloads. Its Cinebench R23 results, both single-core and multi-core, are decisive. The 88.8% single-core lead and the 37% multi-core lead in R23 indicate that this processor handles heavily threaded rendering tasks with clear superiority. The PassMark physics win of 14.6% reinforces this, positioning the Ultra 7 366H as the stronger choice for simulation and physics-heavy applications. The extended instructions win, while small at 0.4%, adds to its profile in vectorized workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins in the majority of PassMark productivity tests and in the older Cinebench R15 and R20 versions. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4415 versus 4043, an 8.4% lead, shows strength in lightly threaded general applications. Data compression, integer math, floating-point math, and encryption all go to the Ultra 9 285H by margins from 1.1% to 5.1%, making it the better performer in data processing and general compute tasks. The higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz likely contribute to these wins, along with the larger L3 cache of 24 MB.

The overall average benchmark score favors the Ultra 7 366H, 41263 versus 38312, and its 87th percentile ranking versus the 86th for the Ultra 9 285H confirms its higher standing in the database. However, the Ultra 9 285H offers ECC memory support and a higher TDP envelope, which may matter in specific deployment scenarios. The two processors split the workload spectrum down the middle: the Ultra 7 366H for rendering and physics, the Ultra 9 285H for general compute and data manipulation.