OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 365 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,650PassMark multi-core score:22249N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2540TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 365 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 73% of models
Score components

40%

7.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 73% of processors
5.5

Value for money

Value for money
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
7.4

Technical score

Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 76%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
No expert tests yet
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £2,650
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 365

Technical score
Technical score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

7.3

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

7.4
Reviews score
7.2
User score
?
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2540
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz & 4x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.4 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 57.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
22,249
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 22,249 in PassMark, which is higher than 74.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
2 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 2 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Foundry
?
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,467 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,467 MHz, which is higher than that of 90.8% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-7467 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-7467 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.1% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Graphics 4 Xe-Cores
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
55 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 55 W which is lower than that of 59.7% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 7 365 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 59.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,087 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,087 vs 2,558
  • 2.06x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,734 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,734 vs 5,209
  • 71.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,627 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,627 vs 1,535
  • 94% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,249 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,249 vs 11,469
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 83.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (2 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    2 nm vs 12 nm
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 59.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,087 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,087 vs 2,558
  • 2.06x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (10,734 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    10,734 vs 5,209
  • 71.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,627 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,627 vs 1,535
  • 94% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,249 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,249 vs 11,469
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.4 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.4 GHz & 4x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    16 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 83.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (2 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    2 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 47.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    93 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.55x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (119.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    119.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2.33x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7467 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    7,467 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-7467 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-7467 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 10.6x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 365 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,650 vs £250).
    £2,650 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA2540 vs FP5).
    FCBGA2540 vs FP5
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 33.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 365 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.5 vs 7.3).
    5.5 vs 7.33
  • 10.6x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 365 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,650 vs £250).
    £2,650 vs £250
  • 33.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 365 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.5 vs 7.3).
    5.5 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA2540 vs FP5).
    FCBGA2540 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 99.9% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (0 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    0.004 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Graphics 4 Xe-Cores vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Graphics 4 Xe-Cores vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 7 365

  • A PassMark multi-core score of 22249 means heavy jobs finish sooner.
  • A PassMark single-core score of 4087 keeps everyday apps responsive.
  • A 4.8 GHz boost clock speeds up lightly threaded tasks.
  • Memory runs at 7467 MHz with 119.5 GB/s of bandwidth.
  • The 2 nm process packs more circuitry into the same space.
  • The big.LITTLE layout mixes four performance cores with four slower ones.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 365

  • There is no multithreading, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • The PCIe lane count of 12 leaves less room for add-in cards and fast storage.
  • Boost power of 55 W is more than double the 25 W base.
  • The chip is locked, so the clock cannot be raised by hand.
  • Memory tops out at 128 GB, which limits very large workloads.

Verdict

People who render video or run many programs at once will find the Intel Core Ultra 7 365 a strong fit, because multi-core speed is its main draw. Eight cores and eight threads share the work, and a 4.8 GHz boost clock keeps lighter tasks moving. Its Geekbench 6 single-core score of 2627 is solid for everyday apps, and it is built on a 2 nm process. Memory runs at up to 7467 MHz with 119.5 GB/s of bandwidth, and it accepts up to 128 GB. Base power is 25 W, and boost power rises to 55 W when work gets heavy. The catch is the PCIe lane count of 12, which leaves less room for extra fast devices. There is also no multithreading, so each core runs one thread.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 365 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 7 365 and other processors

No results found