Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided picture. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H claims every single victory. The Intel Core 5 210H does not win a single test in the database, whether the workload is single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction execution.

The Core Ultra 5 336H dominates in multi-threaded rendering workloads, which points directly at content creation and 3D modeling scenarios. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 23991 against the Core 5 210H's 11830, a gap of 50.7%. That is more than double the throughput. Similarly, Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 10076 versus 6504, a 35.5% advantage. These are the kinds of workloads that scale with core count and thread count, and the Ultra 5 336H has both in greater abundance.

Single-thread performance also favors the newer part, though by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3387 versus 1771, a 47.7% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4013 versus 3539, an 11.8% advantage. The single-thread gap is smaller than the multi-thread gap, but it is still consistent across every single-core test in the database.

Specialized workload tests reinforce the pattern. The Ultra 5 336H leads by 82.3% in PassMark find prime numbers, by 45.5% in extended instructions, and by 45.3% in floating point math. These are classic CPU-bound computations that benefit from both architectural efficiency and raw core count. Data compression shows a 22.3% lead, data encryption a 42.8% lead, and random string sorting a 31.8% lead.

The only near-even contest is PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 336H scores 62070 against 61503, a marginal 0.9% difference. This suggests that integer-heavy workloads that are not highly parallel may not fully exploit the architectural advantages of the newer chip. Still, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins even that test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 while the Core 5 210H scores 11830. The database records a 50.7% advantage for the Ultra 5 336H.

Q: Does the Core 5 210H win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 17 tests, and the Core Ultra 5 336H wins all 17. The Core 5 210H has zero wins.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H has an average benchmark score of 34485 and sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 210H has an average benchmark score of 24872 and sits at the 77th percentile.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process node. The Core 5 210H uses a 10 nm process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Core Ultra 5 336H comes in PassMark find prime numbers. The score is 299 versus 53, a delta of 82.3%. This is not a typical everyday workload, but it is a strong indicator of raw integer arithmetic throughput and architectural efficiency. The older Raptor Lake design trails by an enormous margin here.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the second-largest gap at 50.7%. The Ultra 5 336H scores 23991, more than doubling the 11830 of the Core 5 210H. This workload is heavily used in the industry for evaluating sustained multi-threaded performance, and the result indicates that the Panther Lake part delivers roughly two times the rendering throughput in this test.

Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 47.7% gap, with 3387 versus 1771. This is significant because single-core performance often dictates responsiveness in everyday applications and lightly threaded games. The newer architecture is clearly faster per thread, not just faster overall.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 45.5% lead, with 24542 versus 13370. This test measures performance on specialized instruction sets such as AES and SIMD operations. The Ultra 5 336H also leads floating point math by 45.3%, scoring 82415 versus 45057. Data encryption shows a 42.8% gap, 21291 versus 12187.

PassMark multithread shows 28545 versus 18252, a 36.1% advantage. PassMark physics shows 2682 versus 1040, a 61.2% gap. Random string sorting shows 34402 versus 23451, a 31.8% lead. Data compression shows 280340 versus 217805, a 22.3% lead.

The closest test is PassMark integer math at 0.9%, with 62070 versus 61503. This near-tie suggests that the Core 5 210H retains competitive integer throughput despite its older architecture, and in integer-heavy single-threaded loops the two chips perform almost identically. However, even this narrow contest goes to the Core Ultra 5 336H.

The single-thread tests show a consistent pattern. Cinebench R15 single-core is 341 versus 247, a 27.6% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core is 1422 versus 918, a 35.4% gap. PassMark single-thread is 4013 versus 3539, an 11.8% gap. The Cinebench single-core gaps are larger than the PassMark gap, which may reflect differences in how each test stresses the CPU pipeline.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification category. Core count doubles from 8 in the Core 5 210H to 16 in the Core Ultra 5 336H. Thread count changes from 12 to 16, meaning the older chip uses hyper-threading on some cores while the newer chip has one thread per core.

Base clocks differ slightly. The Core 5 210H runs at 2.20 GHz base, while the Core Ultra 5 336H runs at 1.90 GHz base. Boost clocks are closer: 4.80 GHz for the Core 5 210H versus 4.60 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 336H. The older part actually has the higher boost clock, yet it still loses every single-thread benchmark, which points to architectural efficiency rather than raw clock speed.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core 5 210H is rated at 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is rated at 25 W. The newer chip delivers far more performance while carrying a lower TDP rating, which suggests significantly better performance per watt in the recorded data.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 5 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. Memory support also differs: the Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5 336H also lists a memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5 210H does not have a recorded bandwidth value.

PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 5 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The Core 5 210H has a launch MSRP of $342. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational. The Intel Core 5 210H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core 5 generation described as Raptor Lake Refresh. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is built on Panther Lake, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation.

Process node differences are stark. The Core 5 210H uses a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the 3 nm node provides a significant density and efficiency advantage that shows up across the benchmark suite.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The Core 5 210H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Every level of cache is larger on the Ultra 5 336H, which helps explain its single-thread advantage despite the lower boost clock.

The core topology also differs. The Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads, which implies a mix of performance cores with hyper-threading and efficiency cores without it. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no core uses hyper-threading. The thread count does not double alongside the core count, yet multi-threaded performance still roughly doubles in Cinebench R23, which highlights the per-core efficiency of the Panther Lake architecture.

Release timing is separated by roughly one year. The Core 5 210H was released on 2024-12-17, while the Core Ultra 5 336H was released on 2026-01-04. Both are classified as active production parts in the mobile market segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one conclusion for most workloads: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the faster processor in every measured category. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, holds an 84th percentile ranking versus the Core 5 210H's 77th percentile, and posts an average benchmark score of 34485 against 24872. The 3 nm Panther Lake architecture, larger cache hierarchy, and doubled core count combine to produce leads ranging from 0.9% in integer math to 82.3% in prime number finding.

The Intel Core 5 210H does retain a few specification-level advantages. Its boost clock is higher at 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Its TDP is higher at 45 W versus 25 W, which in some chassis designs could imply a different thermal profile. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for systems reusing older memory modules. And it has a recorded launch MSRP of $342, while the Ultra 5 336H has no recorded price in the database.

For buyers who prioritize multi-threaded rendering, the choice is clear. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Ultra 5 336H delivering more than double the score. For single-thread responsiveness, the Ultra 5 336H also leads, though by a smaller margin. For specialized workloads like encryption, compression, and physics simulation, the newer chip is consistently ahead by wide margins.

The narrow integer math result is the only data point that suggests parity, and it is a single test among 17. The overall pattern is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 5 336H is the superior processor according to every benchmark in the database. The Core 5 210H remains a functional mobile processor, but it does not win a single recorded comparison against its Panther Lake counterpart.