Intel Core Ultra 7 366H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the primary performance categories where the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores well?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H delivers strong results in multi-threaded workloads, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28477 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 33429. Its single-thread performance is also notable, reaching 4020 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4043 in Passmark single-thread.

Q: Does the Intel Processor 300 have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the Intel Processor 300. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals recorded. The only quantitative comparison available is through its specification-level attributes.

Q: How do the core counts differ between these two processors?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H contains 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 contains 2 cores and 4 threads. This is a substantial divergence in parallel processing capacity.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process node, while the Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 7 366H's base clock of 2.00 GHz. However, the Core Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Processor 300 has no boost clock listed.

Q: What is the market positioning of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor using the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and the Intel Processor 300 is a desktop processor using the Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Processor 300 sits in the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins decisively in every performance category where data exists. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2870, R20 multi-core score of 11960, and R23 multi-core score of 28477 all demonstrate a processor designed for heavily threaded workloads. The Core Ultra 7 366H also leads in single-core tests, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4020 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4043. The data shows the Core Ultra 7 366H is positioned for productivity and multi-application scenarios.

The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores, which means the database cannot confirm any wins for it. Its specification sheet does show strengths in base clock speed and power envelope relative to its core count. The 3.90 GHz base clock is high for a dual-core part, and the 46 W TDP suggests a design focused on steady, consistent operation. The Processor 300 also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, which exceeds the 12 lanes available on the Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Core Ultra 7 366H further wins on memory bandwidth, with a listed 115.2 GB/s versus no bandwidth figure for the Processor 300. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 366H's 18 MB of shared L3 cache vastly outpaces the Processor 300's 6 MB shared L3 cache. For users running data compression, encryption, or floating-point math, the Core Ultra 7 366H's Passmark data compression score of 327455 and floating-point math score of 103615 indicate a clear advantage.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 7 366H is built on the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. It uses a 3 nm process node. The Intel Processor 300 is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, and uses a 10 nm process node. Both are Intel foundry products, but they represent different design generations and manufacturing technologies.

The core topologies differ fundamentally. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, indicating no hyper-threading on any core. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The cache hierarchy also diverges sharply. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Processor 300 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 18 MB on the Ultra 7 366H versus 6 MB on the Processor 300.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. These are different GPU architectures, with the Xe3 being a newer generation. The memory controllers also reflect generational differences: the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 7 366H has a listed memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Processor 300.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile socket, while the Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. The production status for both is listed as Active, and both have locked multipliers. The release dates differ by roughly two years: the Processor 300 was released in January 2024, and the Core Ultra 7 366H in January 2026.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores versus 2 cores on the Processor 300. Thread counts are 16 versus 4. The base clock speeds are 2.00 GHz on the Ultra 7 366H and 3.90 GHz on the Processor 300. The Ultra 7 366H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz; the Processor 300 has no boost clock listed.

Thermal design power differs: the Core Ultra 7 366H has a 25 W TDP, while the Processor 300 has a 46 W TDP. The socket types are distinct, as are the architectures and process nodes. Cache sizes differ at every level. L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache is 18 MB shared versus 6 MB shared.

Memory support differs in scope. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The memory bus is dual-channel for both. The Ultra 7 366H lists 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth; the Processor 300 has no bandwidth figure. The PCIe configurations differ: the Ultra 7 366H has Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes, while the Processor 300 has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Neither supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics are different models. The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, and the Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The market segments differ: mobile for the Ultra 7 366H, desktop for the Processor 300. The die size is listed only for the Processor 300 at 163 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Ultra 7 366H. The Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82; the Ultra 7 366H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records benchmark scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H across multiple test suites, but it lists no benchmark scores for the Intel Processor 300. Consequently, a direct score-to-score comparison is only possible for the Ultra 7 366H, and the Processor 300 must be assessed through its specifications alone.

The Core Ultra 7 366H shows strong multi-core performance in Cinebench tests. Its R15 multi-core score is 2870, its R20 multi-core score is 11960, and its R23 multi-core score is 28477. The single-core Cinebench results are 405 in R15, 1688 in R20, and 4020 in R23. The Passmark suite records a single-thread score of 4043, which appears twice in the database under slightly different test names.

The Passmark results for the Ultra 7 366H cover a range of workloads. Data compression scores 327455, data encryption scores 25845, and extended instructions score 26901. Find prime numbers scores 326, floating-point math scores 103615, and integer math scores 83695. The multithread score is 33429, physics scores 2880, and random string sorting scores 39814.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 7 366H is closely matched. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average score of 41215, a delta of 0.1 percent. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also has an average score of 41208, also a delta of 0.1 percent. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X has an average score of 41376, a delta of -0.3 percent. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has an average score of 40967, a delta of 0.7 percent. The Ultra 7 366H's average benchmark score is 41263, with a percentile ranking of 87 among all CPUs.

Because the Processor 300 has no benchmark entries, the database cannot compute deltas or head-to-head wins. The Processor 300's percentile ranking of 50 is based on its average score of 0, which places it at the median of recorded CPUs. This is a structural limitation of the recorded data rather than a performance conclusion. The specification differences, particularly the 16-core versus 2-core configuration and the 18 MB versus 6 MB L3 cache, strongly suggest the Ultra 7 366H will outperform the Processor 300 in multi-threaded tasks. The Processor 300's higher base clock may benefit lightly threaded workloads, but without benchmark data, the database cannot quantify that advantage.