Intel Core 5 130HL vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no overlapping benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 130HL and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. The Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark entries, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark results. This absence of direct comparison data means the head-to-head analysis must rely on the Core Ultra 5 338H's absolute scores and its position against its nearest rivals, as well as the architectural and specification differences that inform expected performance.

For the Core Ultra 5 338H, the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16331 and single-core score of 2044 indicate a balanced processor. The R20 multicore result of 10213 and single-core result of 1441 follow a similar pattern. The PassMark suite shows a multithread score of 28717 and a single-thread score of 4180. The data compression score of 276539 is particularly strong, while the encryption score of 21367 and extended instructions score of 23906 suggest capable cryptographic and SIMD throughput. Integer math at 64934 and floating-point math at 84067 are both robust figures for a mobile part.

The Core Ultra 5 338H's average benchmark score of 33989 places it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals show a tight cluster. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H scores 34083, which is only 0.3% higher, making the two effectively equivalent in aggregate performance. The Intel Core i7-12800HX scores 33875, 0.3% lower. The Intel Xeon 6353P scores 33844, 0.4% lower, and the AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34220, 0.7% higher. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the Core Ultra 5 338H sits in a highly competitive performance tier where minor workload differences will determine the winner.

Because the Core 5 130HL lacks any benchmark data, the database cannot confirm whether it would outperform the Core Ultra 5 338H in any specific test. The Core 5 130HL does have a higher base clock (2.60 GHz vs 1.90 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 4.70 GHz), which could translate to a single-thread advantage in lightly threaded workloads, but no measured scores substantiate that claim. Conversely, the Core Ultra 5 338H's newer Panther Lake architecture and 3 nm process node compared to the 10 nm Raptor Lake node suggest efficiency gains, but those are architectural inferences, not benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 130HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average is zero in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 338H compare to its nearest rival, the Core Ultra 7 165H?

A: The Core Ultra 7 165H has an average score of 34083, which is 0.3% higher than the Core Ultra 5 338H's 33989. This difference is negligible, indicating near-identical aggregate performance.

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

A: Both processors have 12 cores. The Intel Core 5 130HL has 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 threads. The Core 5 130HL supports Hyper-Threading, providing four additional threads.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 5 130HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL uses a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 5 338H's 4.70 GHz boost clock.

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H for anyone seeking a processor with validated performance. Its average benchmark score of 33989 places it in the 84th percentile, and its nearest rivals, including the Core Ultra 7 165H and Core i7-12800HX, all score within 0.7% of it. This means the Core Ultra 5 338H delivers performance that is statistically indistinguishable from some of Intel's higher-tier mobile parts. For workloads measured by the database, such as Cinebench multicore rendering and PassMark integer math, this processor has proven results.

The Intel Core 5 130HL, with no benchmark scores, cannot be recommended based on measured data. Its higher base and boost clocks suggest potential single-thread capability, but the database contains no evidence to confirm this. Its 16 threads versus 12 threads on the Core Ultra 5 338H could benefit heavily threaded workloads, but again, no scores exist to validate that expectation. The Core 5 130HL's 50th percentile standing is a default placement, not a measured outcome.

For a desktop user who needs confirmed performance, the data points to the Core Ultra 5 338H, despite its mobile market segment. For a user who prioritizes the Core 5 130HL's higher clock speeds and additional threads, the decision would rest on unverified potential rather than recorded results. The benchmark database can only certify the Core Ultra 5 338H as the performer of the two.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every hardware specification. The Intel Core 5 130HL uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Core 5 130HL is a desktop part, whereas the Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile part. The Core 5 130HL has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Clock speeds differ: the Core 5 130HL has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz; the Core Ultra 5 338H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Thread counts differ as well: the Core 5 130HL has 16 threads versus 12 threads on the Core Ultra 5 338H.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 130HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, whereas the Core 5 130HL has no bandwidth figure in the database. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 5 130HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 5 130HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370.

The release dates are distinct. The Core 5 130HL was released on 2024-04-07, while the Core Ultra 5 338H was released on 2026-01-04. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a part number of SA4REQ9EW, while the Core 5 130HL has an unknown part number. Neither processor has a launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is substantial. The Intel Core 5 130HL is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. The process node difference is significant: the Core 5 130HL uses a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process, both fabricated by Intel.

Cache configurations diverge notably. The Core 5 130HL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache, but the per-core cache sizes on the Core Ultra 5 338H are larger, which can improve latency-sensitive workloads.

Core organization differs. The Core 5 130HL supports 16 threads from 12 cores, indicating that some cores have hyper-threading enabled. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 threads from 12 cores, meaning no hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) generation, while the Core 5 130HL belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation.

Neither processor has a multiplier unlocked, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H's newer architecture and smaller process node suggest efficiency advantages over the Raptor Lake design, but the database does not record power efficiency metrics directly. The architectural differences in cache hierarchy and process technology are the most relevant factors separating the two beyond clock speeds and thread counts.