Intel Core Ultra 7 366H vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 7 366H vs Intel Processor N150

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all four head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from substantial to extreme. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 366H scores 2870 against 422.5 for the N150, a delta of 579.3%. The single-core R15 test shows a narrower but still dominant gap: 405 points versus 153.15, a 164.4% advantage for the Ultra 7 366H.

The multicore gap widens further in Cinebench R23. The Ultra 7 366H produces 28477 points, while the N150 manages 2590.5. That delta reaches 999.3%, indicating the higher-tier chip delivers roughly eleven times the sustained multithreaded performance. The R23 single-core test similarly favors the Ultra 7 366H, with 4020 points against 935, a 329.9% lead. These results confirm that the Ultra 7 366H is not merely faster but operates in an entirely different performance class.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Ultra 7 366H records an average score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with an average score of 41215 (delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (delta 0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 (delta -0.3%). The N150, by contrast, averages just 1025, sitting in the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1024 (delta 0.1%), the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026 (delta -0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U at 1024 (delta 0.1%).

The Cinebench R20 scores, available only for the Ultra 7 366H, provide additional context. The chip reaches 11960 in multicore and 1688 in single-core. The N150 has no recorded R20 results in the database, so direct comparison is impossible, but the R15 and R23 patterns leave little ambiguity. The Ultra 7 366H also has a broader benchmark footprint, including PassMark tests for data compression (327455), encryption (25845), extended instructions (26901), prime numbers (326), floating point math (103615), integer math (83695), multithread (33429), physics (2880), random string sorting (39814), and single-thread (4043). The N150 lacks these entries entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide explains the performance gulf. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture with a 3 nm process node from Intel. It packs 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The thermal design power is 25 W. Cache allocation is generous: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support covers DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU connects via Gen 5 PCIe with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics come from Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The Intel Processor N150 is a far simpler design. It uses the Twin Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process node from Intel. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The thermal design power is just 6 W. Cache is much smaller: 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only over a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s. PCIe connectivity drops to Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730.

The socket and generation differ as well. The Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is listed as Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). The N150 uses Intel BGA 1264 and is listed as Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N), despite the Twin Lake codename. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates reflect the product positioning: the N150 launched in late 2024, while the Ultra 7 366H came later in early 2026.

The core count and cache hierarchy are the most consequential differences. Sixteen cores with per-core L2 and a large shared L3 allow the Ultra 7 366H to handle heavily threaded workloads far beyond the N150's four-core, shared-L2 design. The memory bus width difference, dual-channel versus single-channel, further amplifies the gap in memory-bound tasks. The process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, explains much of the power efficiency and clock behavior, though the database records no direct power efficiency metrics.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear stratification. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is a high-performance mobile processor, sitting at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 41263 places it alongside established desktop-class parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which scores 41376, and ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208. The N150, at the 28th percentile with an average score of 1025, aligns with aging entry-level chips such as the Intel Core i7-5650U at 1027 and the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1024.

For workloads that stress multicore performance, the Ultra 7 366H is the only serious option. The R23 multicore delta of 999.3% is not a marginal improvement; it represents an order-of-magnitude shift in throughput. For single-threaded responsiveness, the R23 single-core delta of 329.9% still leaves the N150 at less than a quarter of the Ultra 7 366H's score. The N150's lower TDP of 6 W versus 25 W suggests a power-efficient design, but the database provides no thermal or battery-life measurements to quantify that advantage.

The N150 is suitable for workloads that are lightly threaded and power-constrained, such as basic productivity or thin-client duties. The Ultra 7 366H is suited for demanding applications: content creation, software compilation, data analysis, or anything that can use 16 threads and 18 MB of L3. There is no benchmark in the recorded data where the N150 wins. The verdict is straightforward: the Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor by every measured metric.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, while the Intel Processor N150 scores 2590.5. That is a 999.3% advantage for the Ultra 7 366H.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The Ultra 7 366H scores 405, and the N150 scores 153.15. The delta is 164.4% in favor of the Ultra 7 366H.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the cache sizes for each processor?

A: The Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Ultra 7 366H supports dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N150 uses single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Where does each processor rank in the overall CPU percentile?

A: The Ultra 7 366H is in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41263. The N150 is in the 28th percentile, with an average score of 1025.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every recorded benchmark comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 579.3% delta shows a massive advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks. The R23 multicore result, with a 999.3% delta, confirms that the Ultra 7 366H can sustain extreme multithreaded throughput for extended workloads. The single-core wins, 164.4% in R15 and 329.9% in R23, indicate that even lightly threaded applications respond significantly faster on the Ultra 7 366H. The PassMark suite, available only for the Ultra 7 366H, shows strong results across integer math (83695), floating point math (103615), and data encryption (25845), suggesting broad capability in scientific, financial, and security-oriented tasks.

The Intel Processor N150 has no recorded wins. Its only advantage in the database is the lower thermal design power of 6 W versus 25 W. That makes it a candidate for fanless or passively cooled designs where power draw is the primary constraint. Its 4 cores and 4 threads, combined with a single-channel memory bus, limit it to workloads that do not scale with parallelism or memory bandwidth. The 10 nm process node and lower clock ceiling (3.60 GHz boost versus 4.80 GHz) further restrict its peak performance. The N150's closest rivals in the database, the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, are both legacy desktop parts, underscoring its position as a low-end mobile chip.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload requirements. The Ultra 7 366H is the choice for any task that benefits from 16 threads, large caches, or high memory bandwidth. The N150 is the choice for minimal-power, low-throughput scenarios where the 6 W TDP is the defining factor. The benchmark data does not show any scenario where the N150 outperforms the Ultra 7 366H. The recorded measurements consistently favor the Ultra 7 366H across all four head-to-head tests, with the average benchmark score gap, 41263 versus 1025, representing a 40x difference in overall performance.