Intel Core 3 100UL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, doubling the core count and adding 4 more threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H reaches a higher 4.70 GHz. The base clocks differ more substantially: 1.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 100UL has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, an 8 MB difference.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory exclusively, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s.

Q: What process node is used for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL uses a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process node, a significant manufacturing difference.

Q: Do the two processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 100UL uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments, which explains most of their spec gaps. The Intel Core 3 100UL is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and is classified as a desktop part. It uses a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is a Panther Lake design, specifically Panther Lake-H, and is classified as a mobile part. It uses a 3 nm process node, also from Intel's foundry. This node difference is substantial: the newer 3 nm process allows for denser transistor packing and lower power per operation, which matters for a mobile chip.

The core layout differs as well. The Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads, indicating a configuration with some hyper-threading enabled. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning it has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, or a different hybrid arrangement that results in a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. The L1 cache is also different: 80 KB per core on the Core 3 versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 5. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 and 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 5. The L3 cache totals 10 MB shared on the Core 3 versus 18 MB shared on the Ultra 5. Every cache level favors the Ultra 5, which should help with data-heavy workloads.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 3 100UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, making it flexible for desktop builds with older or newer memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, a low-power memory standard, and the database lists a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s for it. The Core 3 has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. PCIe support also differs: the Core 3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation on the Ultra 5 offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though fewer lanes are available.

Integrated graphics are another differentiator. The Core 3 100UL includes UHD Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370 graphics, which is a more modern GPU architecture. The TDP ratings reflect their intended environments: the Core 3 is a 15 W part, and the Ultra 5 is a 25 W part. The Core 3 was released in April 2024, while the Ultra 5 was released in January 2026, nearly two years later. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 5 has a part number of SA4REQ9EW, while the Core 3 lists its part number as unknown.

The Verdict

Benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H in nearly every measurable category. The database shows the Ultra 5 has an average benchmark score of 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 100UL has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, with no recorded benchmark entries. This is a decisive gap: the Ultra 5 is a fully validated, tested processor, while the Core 3 has no benchmark data in the database at all.

The Ultra 5 also has structural advantages that predict strong performance: 12 cores versus 6, a higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 4.50 GHz, twice the L2 cache per core, and nearly double the L3 cache. Its 3 nm process node versus 10 nm gives it a manufacturing edge. The Ultra 5 sits close to several high-performing rivals in the database: it is 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12800HX, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6353P, and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P. Those are tight margins, meaning the Ultra 5 competes at a high level.

For a desktop builder considering the Core 3 100UL, the data offers no performance evidence to support a purchase. It has fewer cores, lower clocks, older architecture, and no benchmark scores. The Ultra 5 is the clear choice for anyone who needs processing power, especially in mobile form factors where its 25 W TDP and LPDDR5X support fit. The Core 3 might be relevant only if socket compatibility with Intel Socket 1700 or DDR4/DDR5 memory support is a hard requirement, but the recorded data does not show any performance benefit from choosing it.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification field in the database. The Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 1.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.50 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 25 W. The sockets are entirely different: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 5.

Architecture and process node differences are stark: Raptor Lake on 10 nm for the Core 3, Panther Lake on 3 nm for the Ultra 5. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 10 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 5, which also has a listed memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 3 has no memory bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core 3, Gen 5 with 4 lanes for the Ultra 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 64EU versus Arc B370. Market segment is Desktop for the Core 3 and Mobile for the Ultra 5. Release dates are April 2024 for the Core 3 and January 2026 for the Ultra 5. The Core 3 has no launch MSRP, and the Ultra 5 also has no launch MSRP. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both are active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries that directly compare the Intel Core 3 100UL against the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This means there is no recorded side-by-side test data in the database for these two specific processors.

However, the Ultra 5 has a full suite of benchmark scores recorded, while the Core 3 has none. The Ultra 5's Cinebench results show strong multi-core performance: 2504 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 305 in R15 singlecore, 10213 in R20 multicore, 1441 in R20 singlecore, 16331 in R23 multicore, and 2044 in R23 singlecore. Passmark results reinforce this: 276539 in data compression, 21367 in data encryption, 23906 in extended instructions, 304 in find prime numbers, 84067 in floating point math, 64934 in integer math, 28717 in multithread, 2697 in physics, 34082 in random string sorting, and 4180 in single thread.

The Core 3 100UL has zero benchmarks in the database, so there are no numbers to compare directly. The percentile fields tell the story: the Ultra 5 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 50th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 is 33989, and for the Core 3 it is 0. This is not a close contest in the recorded data; it is a one-sided comparison where only one processor has measurable performance.

The Ultra 5's nearest rivals in the database confirm its standing. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H by 0.3%, a negligible margin. It beats the Intel Core i7-12800HX by 0.3% and the Intel Xeon 6353P by 0.4%. It trails the AMD EPYC 4244P by 0.7%. All four rivals have average scores in the 33844 to 34220 range, which brackets the Ultra 5's 33989. This places the Ultra 5 firmly in a competitive tier with high-end laptop and workstation processors.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every category where performance is measured. It has a higher boost clock (4.70 GHz versus 4.50 GHz), more cores (12 versus 6), more threads (12 versus 8), larger caches at every level, a newer process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), and a higher TDP envelope (25 W versus 15 W) to sustain that performance. Its benchmark scores are extensive and place it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rival data shows it trading blows with the Core Ultra 7 165H, Core i7-12800HX, Xeon 6353P, and EPYC 4244P, all of which are serious processors in their own right.

The Intel Core 3 100UL has no recorded benchmark wins. Its strengths are structural rather than performance-based: it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which is useful for desktop builds with existing DDR4 RAM. It uses Intel Socket 1700, a common desktop socket with broad motherboard availability. It has a lower TDP of 15 W, which means lower power draw, though the database does not record any efficiency benchmarks to quantify this. Its PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes offers more lanes than the Ultra 5's 4 lanes, which could matter for connecting multiple peripherals, though the Ultra 5's Gen 5 standard provides higher per-lane bandwidth.

For use cases, the Ultra 5 is the pick for multi-threaded workloads like rendering, video encoding, or compilation, where its 12 cores and 18 MB L3 cache should provide a decisive advantage. Its single-thread scores are also strong, with a Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 2044, so it handles lightly threaded tasks well too. The Core 3, with no benchmark data, cannot be recommended for any specific workload based on the database. Its only clear advantages are memory flexibility and socket compatibility, both of which matter for desktop builders but do not translate into measured performance. The data supports choosing the Ultra 5 for any application where processing power is the priority, and the Core 3 only for scenarios where its specific socket or memory support is a non-negotiable requirement.