Intel Core Ultra 7 366H vs Intel Processor 300T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H and the Intel Processor 300T sit at opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The recorded data shows the Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Processor 300T by a substantial margin in every benchmark category, though the Processor 300T has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct comparisons one-sided.

The Core Ultra 7 366H delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28477, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database. This result indicates strong multi-threaded capability, driven by its 16 cores and 16 threads. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 4020 also demonstrates robust per-thread performance, a meaningful factor for lightly threaded workloads.

In the Passmark suite, the Ultra 7 366H shows consistently high results. The multithread score of 33429 and the single-thread score of 4043 both confirm the processor handles mixed workloads efficiently. The data compression score of 327455 and the integer math score of 83695 indicate solid throughput in compute-heavy tasks. Floating point math reaches 103615, while extended instructions score 26901, showing the processor handles SIMD-style workloads well.

The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 366H provide useful context. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215 on average, just 0.1% behind the 366H. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also scores 41208, again 0.1% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41376, which is 0.3% ahead of the 366H. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40967, 0.7% behind. These tight margins indicate the 366H sits in a highly competitive cluster of processors, with no single rival holding a decisive lead.

The Processor 300T, by contrast, has no benchmark entries in the database. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all tracked CPUs, but without recorded scores, the data cannot quantify its performance head-to-head. The 300T is a 2-core, 4-thread desktop chip, which structurally suggests far lower multi-threaded throughput than the 16-core Ultra 7 366H. However, the database contains no direct measurements to confirm this.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and manufacturing nodes. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, while the Processor 300T uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node. This process difference is substantial; the 3 nm node allows for significantly denser transistor packing, which typically improves both performance and efficiency.

The Ultra 7 366H features 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Processor 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. This is the most fundamental architectural gap between the two. The 16-core design enables parallel processing across many threads simultaneously, while the 2-core design with Hyper-Threading (4 threads) is oriented toward basic tasks and light workloads.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor 300T has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 366H therefore provides more than double the L3 cache, which can improve performance in workloads that repeatedly access large data sets.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Processor 300T has a base clock of 3.40 GHz but no listed boost clock in the database. The higher base clock on the 300T may help in lightly threaded tasks, but the 366H's boost capability to 4.80 GHz gives it a significant ceiling under load.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Processor 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the database does not list a memory bandwidth figure. The 366H's support for LPDDR5X is notable for mobile applications, where power efficiency and bandwidth matter.

Integrated graphics also vary. The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Processor 300T uses UHD Graphics 710. The Xe3 architecture is a newer generation, which typically provides better graphics performance, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice for workloads requiring multi-threaded performance, high cache capacity, and modern memory support. Its 16-core design, 18 MB L3 cache, and 4.80 GHz boost clock position it well above the median, as confirmed by its 87th percentile ranking. The Processor 300T, at the 50th percentile, falls in the middle of all tracked CPUs, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm its actual performance level.

The market segments also differ. The Ultra 7 366H targets mobile devices with a 25 W TDP and an Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Processor 300T targets desktops with a 35 W TDP and an Intel Socket 1700. Users building or upgrading a desktop system might prefer the 300T for its higher base clock and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which support more expansion options. Users needing a mobile processor with strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance should select the Ultra 7 366H.

The launch MSRP for the Processor 300T is $82. The Ultra 7 366H has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications:

• Cores: The Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, while the Processor 300T has 2 cores.
• Threads: The Ultra 7 366H has 16 threads, while the Processor 300T has 4 threads.
• Base clock: The Ultra 7 366H runs at 2.00 GHz, while the Processor 300T runs at 3.40 GHz.
• Boost clock: The Ultra 7 366H boosts to 4.80 GHz; the Processor 300T has no listed boost clock.
• TDP: The Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 W, while the Processor 300T has a TDP of 35 W.
• Socket: The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, while the Processor 300T uses Intel Socket 1700.
• Architecture: The Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake, while the Processor 300T uses Raptor Lake.
• Process node: The Ultra 7 366H uses 3 nm, while the Processor 300T uses 10 nm.
• L1 cache: The Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB per core, while the Processor 300T has 80 KB per core.
• L2 cache: The Ultra 7 366H has 2.5 MB per core, while the Processor 300T has 1.25 MB per core.
• L3 cache: The Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB shared, while the Processor 300T has 6 MB shared.
• Memory support: The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X; the Processor 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5.
• Memory bandwidth: The Ultra 7 366H has 115.2 GB/s; the Processor 300T has no listed value.
• PCIe: The Ultra 7 366H has Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only); the Processor 300T has Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).
• Integrated graphics: The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics; the Processor 300T uses UHD Graphics 710.
• Market segment: The Ultra 7 366H is mobile; the Processor 300T is desktop.
• Die size: The Processor 300T has a die size of 163 mm²; the Ultra 7 366H has no listed die size.
• Release date: The Ultra 7 366H released on 2026-01-04; the Processor 300T released on 2024-01-07.
• Part number: The Ultra 7 366H is SA4R9Q9EL; the Processor 300T is SRN3K.

Both processors are active in production, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both have ECC memory disabled.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare?

A: The database contains benchmark scores only for the Ultra 7 366H. It scores 28477 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 4020 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Processor 300T has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each processor?

A: The Ultra 7 366H ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Processor 300T ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process node. The Processor 300T uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: What TDP does each processor have?

A: The Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 W. The Processor 300T has a TDP of 35 W.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The Processor 300T supports 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 7 366H supports 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in multi-threaded workloads. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide substantial parallel processing capability, reflected in the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28477 and the Passmark multithread score of 33429. Tasks such as video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, and heavy data processing would benefit from this architecture. The 18 MB shared L3 cache also supports workloads with large working sets, reducing the need to access main memory frequently. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth further aids data-intensive operations.

The Ultra 7 366H also wins in single-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4020 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4043. This indicates strong per-core efficiency, which matters for applications that rely on a few threads, such as many productivity tools and legacy software.

The Intel Processor 300T wins in scenarios where its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz provides an edge. For very light, bursty workloads that do not scale across many cores, the 300T's base clock could deliver responsive performance. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also give it an advantage in desktop expansion, allowing more devices such as GPUs, NVMe drives, or capture cards to connect directly to the CPU. The 300T supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which offers flexibility for builders using older or newer memory platforms.

The Processor 300T also has a lower ceiling in terms of raw performance, but its 35 W TDP and desktop socket make it a suitable option for basic office tasks, web browsing, and entry-level computing where multi-threaded demand is minimal. The Ultra 7 366H, despite its higher core count, has a lower TDP of 25 W, which is advantageous for mobile devices where thermal and power constraints are tighter.

In the database's nearest rival analysis, the Ultra 7 366H sits within 0.7% of its closest competitors, with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X leading by 0.3%. This narrow margin shows the 366H is competitive at its performance tier, though not a runaway leader. The Processor 300T has no rival data, so its competitive position cannot be assessed from the database.