M3 Ultra vs Core Ultra 7 366H
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | M3 Ultra | Core Ultra 7 366H | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 133 | 123 | +8.1% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,753 | 1,108 | +148.5% |
| Cores | 32 (24P+8E) | 16 (4P+12E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 140 | 15 | — |
- M3 Ultra is faster than Core Ultra 7 366H by 8.1% in single-core and faster by 148.5% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 7 366H draws less power (15W vs 140W base TDP).
Verdict: M3 Ultra or Core Ultra 7 366H?
M3 Ultra advantages
- Single-core speed (+8%)
- Multi-core speed (+60%)
Core Ultra 7 366H advantages
- Power efficiency (+89%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
- Choose the Core Ultra 7 366H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
M3 Ultra vs Core Ultra 7 366H: which should you choose?
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core Ultra 7 366H — 16-core Intel processor (4P+12E) scoring 123 single-core and 1108 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 15 W TDP.
M3 Ultra vs Core Ultra 7 366H: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. M3 Ultra is faster than Core Ultra 7 366H by 8.1% in single-core and faster by 148.5% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 7 366H draws less power (15W vs 140W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The M3 Ultra leads there with a single-core score of 133 versus 123, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 1,108 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 7 366H is the more efficient chip at 15 W versus 140 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the M3 Ultra better than the Core Ultra 7 366H?
M3 Ultra is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. M3 Ultra is faster than Core Ultra 7 366H by 8.1% in single-core and faster by 148.5% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the M3 Ultra and the Core Ultra 7 366H?
M3 Ultra is faster than Core Ultra 7 366H by 8.1% in single-core and faster by 148.5% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 7 366H draws less power (15W vs 140W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the M3 Ultra if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness. Choose the Core Ultra 7 366H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.