Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided picture. Across all 17 recorded comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes the win every time, with no test favoring the Intel Core 5 210H. The margins, however, vary substantially depending on the workload, and that variation tells the real story.

The most dramatic gaps appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark's find prime numbers test, the Ultra 5 338H scores 304 against just 53 for the 210H, a staggering 82.6% advantage. Physics simulation shows a similar pattern: 2697 versus 1040, a 61.4% lead. Floating point math also heavily favors the newer chip, with 84067 points against 45057, a 46.4% delta. Extended instruction workloads deliver a 44.1% gap (23906 versus 13370), and data encryption shows a 43% difference (21367 versus 12187).

Cinebench multicore results follow the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Ultra 5 338H posts 10213 against 6504, a 36.3% advantage. The R15 multicore test shows 2504 versus 1757, a 29.8% gap, while R23 multicore lands at 16331 versus 11830, a 27.6% difference. PassMark multithread confirms the trend with 28717 versus 18252, a 36.4% lead.

The closest contest appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 64934 against 61503, just a 5.3% margin. This narrow gap suggests that the older architecture remains competitive in pure integer throughput, even as it falls well behind in other areas.

Single-core performance tells a more moderate version of the same story. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2044 versus 1771, a 13.4% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores 4180 versus 3539, a 15.3% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core delivers 1441 versus 918, a 36.3% difference, while R15 single-core lands at 305 versus 247, a 19% lead. The data indicates that the Ultra 5 338H's architectural improvements benefit both single-thread and multi-thread workloads, though the multicore gains are more pronounced.

Random string sorting shows a 31.2% advantage (34082 versus 23451), and data compression follows at 21.2% (276539 versus 217805). The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: the Ultra 5 338H averages 33989 points against 24872 for the 210H, a difference of roughly 36.6%.

The percentile ranking reinforces the gap. The Ultra 5 338H sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs, while the 210H places at the 77th. The rival comparison data places the 210H near the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.2% below) and AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (0.2% above), while the Ultra 5 338H sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12800HX.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins every single-thread benchmark. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2044 versus 1771 (13.4% ahead), PassMark single-thread shows 4180 versus 3539 (15.3% ahead), and Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1441 versus 918 (36.3% ahead).

Q: How large is the multicore performance difference?

A: The Ultra 5 338H leads by 27.6% in Cinebench R23 multicore (16331 versus 11830), 36.3% in Cinebench R20 multicore (10213 versus 6504), and 36.4% in PassMark multithread (28717 versus 18252).

Q: Where is the performance gap smallest?

A: PassMark integer math shows the narrowest margin at 5.3% (64934 versus 61503). This indicates the older architecture remains relatively strong in pure integer operations.

Q: Where is the performance gap largest?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest gap at 82.6% (304 versus 53). Floating point math follows at 46.4% (84067 versus 45057), and extended instructions at 44.1% (23906 versus 13370).

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average score?

A: The Ultra 5 338H averages 33989 points across all benchmarks, while the 210H averages 24872 points. The Ultra 5 338H also ranks higher at the 84th percentile versus the 77th percentile for the 210H.

Q: Does the Ultra 5 338H have a higher TDP?

A: No. The Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the 210H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Ultra 5 338H delivers higher performance with a lower power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel designs. The Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, built on the Raptor Lake-H codename. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, carrying the Panther Lake codename. This process node difference, from 10 nm to 3 nm, is a major factor in the efficiency and performance deltas observed.

Core configuration differs significantly. The 210H packs 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra 5 338H offers 12 cores and 12 threads. Interestingly, the Ultra 5 338H has more cores but the same thread count, indicating a different core topology where the extra cores do not add simultaneous multithreading. The cache hierarchy also diverges: the 210H provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 338H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Every level of cache favors the newer chip, with 50% more L3 capacity and substantially larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory support highlights a clear generational split. The 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The 210H has no listed bandwidth figure, making direct comparison impossible, but the LPDDR5X-only support signals a design aimed at integrated, power-efficient platforms.

PCIe lanes also differ. The 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes, while the Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The 210H offers more direct PCIe connectivity, which could matter for discrete GPU or NVMe configurations. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the Ultra 5 338H uses an Arc B370 iGPU, a newer and presumably more capable graphics solution.

Sockets and platforms are not interchangeable. The 210H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are physically distinct sockets, meaning the two chips cannot be swapped into the same motherboard. The Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 5 generation (Panther Lake-H), while the 210H belongs to the Core 5 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh).

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear differences in nearly every category. Clock speeds favor the 210H on paper: it has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, versus 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost for the Ultra 5 338H. Despite lower clocks, the Ultra 5 338H wins every benchmark, indicating that architectural efficiency and core count outweigh raw clock speed.

TDP differs by 20 watts. The 210H draws 45 watts, while the Ultra 5 338H draws 25 watts. This is a substantial efficiency advantage for the newer chip, especially in mobile platforms where thermal headroom and battery life matter.

Memory bandwidth is listed only for the Ultra 5 338H at 136.5 GB/s. The 210H does not have a recorded bandwidth figure. The Ultra 5 338H also lists only LPDDR5X memory support, whereas the 210H supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Release dates differ by roughly a year. The 210H launched on 2024-12-17, while the Ultra 5 338H launched on 2026-01-04. The 210H carries a launch MSRP of $342, while the Ultra 5 338H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Socket, part number, and integrated graphics all differ. The 210H uses BGA 1744 and part number SRQ6RQ5MN with Iris Xe Graphics 48EU. The Ultra 5 338H uses BGA 2540 and part number SA4REQ9EW with Arc B370 graphics. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the superior processor across every measured benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, holds a higher average score (33989 versus 24872), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (84th versus 77th). The performance advantage spans single-core, multicore, encryption, compression, floating point, and integer workloads.

The efficiency story is equally compelling. The Ultra 5 338H achieves its dominance with a 25 watt TDP, while the 210H requires 45 watts. Lower power consumption combined with higher performance makes the newer chip the stronger choice for mobile platforms where both thermal output and battery life are constrained.

The 210H is not without merit. Its higher base and boost clocks (2.20 GHz and 4.80 GHz versus 1.90 GHz and 4.70 GHz) and greater PCIe lane count (8 versus 4) suggest it may still serve specific configurations. The narrow 5.3% gap in integer math shows the older architecture retains some competitive strengths. However, these advantages do not translate into a single benchmark win.

For any workload captured in the database, the Ultra 5 338H delivers more performance. The only reasons to consider the 210H would be platform compatibility, given the different sockets, or the availability of DDR4 memory support. From a pure performance standpoint, the data leaves no ambiguity.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every recorded category. The largest advantages appear in prime number finding (82.6% ahead), physics simulation (61.4% ahead), and floating point math (46.4% ahead). These are compute-intensive workloads that benefit from the newer architecture's wider execution resources and larger cache hierarchy. Encryption workloads also show a substantial 43% lead, and extended instructions deliver 44.1%.

The Ultra 5 338H also dominates in rendering-style multicore workloads. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 36.3% advantage, R15 multicore shows 29.8%, and R23 multicore shows 27.6%. PassMark multithread follows at 36.4%. These results indicate strong scaling across the 12 cores, even without additional threads.

The Intel Core 5 210H, while winning no benchmarks, shows its closest relative performance in PassMark integer math, trailing by only 5.3%. Data compression shows a 21.2% gap, and single-thread tests show gaps between 13.4% and 36.3%. The 210H's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz does not rescue it from the architectural deficit, but the integer math result suggests that the Raptor Lake design still handles simple arithmetic operations efficiently.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, physics, encryption, or rendering, the Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice. For workloads dominated by basic integer operations, the 210H is comparatively less disadvantaged but still loses. The data indicates that the Ultra 5 338H is not merely faster, it is faster while consuming nearly half the power, making it the more sensible pick for virtually any mobile application.