Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 220H takes a single victory. That one win is significant, however, because it comes in PassMark integer math, where the Core 5 220H scores 73555 against 64934 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 13.3% advantage. This indicates the older Raptor Lake design retains a specific strength in pure integer arithmetic workloads, which can matter for certain compilation tasks or legacy software paths.

Everywhere else, the Core Ultra 5 338H dominates. The largest margins appear in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 5 leads by 45.2%, and in PassMark extended instructions, where it leads by 38.8%. The floating-point math test shows a 38.5% gap, and the find prime numbers test shows a 73% gap, the largest single delta in the entire comparison. These results point to a clear use-case split: the Core 5 220H is competitive only in narrow integer-heavy scenarios, while the Ultra 5 338H is the stronger choice for rendering, physics simulation, encryption, compression, and general multithreaded productivity.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 5 338H also holds the edge across all three Cinebench generations tested, with deltas ranging from 9.3% in R23 single-core to 14.1% in R15 single-core. The database percentile data reinforces this: the Ultra 5 338H sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 220H sits at the 80th. The average benchmark score difference is substantial, 33989 versus 28574, a gap of roughly 19%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process node difference is generational and explains much of the efficiency and performance divergence.

Core counts are identical at 12, but thread counts differ: the Core 5 220H supports 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports 12. This means the Core 5 220H relies on hyper-threading to reach its thread count, whereas the Ultra 5 338H runs with one thread per core. The cache hierarchy also differs. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Core 5 220H has no memory bandwidth figure in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible, but the newer memory type indicates a platform-level shift.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are different: Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units on the Core 5 220H, versus Arc B370 on the Ultra 5 338H. Sockets also differ, with the Core 5 220H using Intel BGA 1744 and the Ultra 5 338H using Intel BGA 2540. The release dates are separated by roughly a year, with the Core 5 220H launching in December 2024 and the Ultra 5 338H in January 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent and often large advantage for the Ultra 5 338H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 16331 against 11198, a 31.4% lead. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 10213 versus 7812, a 23.5% gap. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2504 against 1835, a 26.7% margin. These are not marginal differences; they represent a full performance tier between the two.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction but with smaller gaps. The Ultra 5 leads by 9.3% in R23 single-core (2044 versus 1853), by 23.5% in R20 single-core (1441 versus 1102), and by 14.1% in R15 single-core (305 versus 262). The R20 single-core delta matches the R20 multi-core delta exactly at 23.5%, which is unusual and suggests a consistent per-core improvement at that workload level.

PassMark results broaden the picture. The Ultra 5 leads in data compression by 10.3% (276539 versus 247921), in data encryption by 28.8% (21367 versus 15216), and in extended instructions by 38.8% (23906 versus 14642). The find prime numbers test shows the largest gap at 73% (304 versus 82), a result that heavily favors the newer architecture's integer and branch-handling capabilities. Floating-point math shows a 38.5% lead (84067 versus 51671), and multithread score shows a 23.8% lead (28717 versus 21884).

The physics test is particularly lopsided: 2697 versus 1478, a 45.2% advantage for the Ultra 5. Random string sorting favors the Ultra 5 by 16.6% (34082 versus 28438), and single-thread PassMark favors it by 18.5% (4180 versus 3405). The only reverse result is integer math, where the Core 5 220H wins by 13.3%. That single data point prevents the comparison from being a complete sweep.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The Core 5 220H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 5 338H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 5 220H thus has higher clocks on paper, yet it loses most benchmarks, which indicates the architectural efficiency of Panther Lake more than compensates for lower clock rates.

TDP differs by a wide margin: the Core 5 220H is rated at 45 watts, while the Ultra 5 338H is rated at 25 watts. This is a 20-watt difference and has direct implications for thermal management in thin-and-light laptops. The Core 5 220H may require more robust cooling, while the Ultra 5 338H can operate in a lower thermal envelope.

Thread counts differ: 16 threads for the Core 5 220H versus 12 for the Ultra 5 338H. L1 cache per core differs: 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 cache per core differs: 2 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache is the same at 18 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 5 220H, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 5 338H. The Ultra 5 338H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, which the Core 5 220H lacks.

PCIe lane counts differ: 8 CPU lanes for the Core 5 220H versus 4 for the Ultra 5 338H. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Arc B370. Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1744 versus Intel BGA 2540. Process node differs: 10 nm versus 3 nm. The Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342, while the Ultra 5 338H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers, both are mobile segment parts, both are active production, and neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H has 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 threads. Both have 12 cores.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H scores 304 against 82 for the Intel Core 5 220H, a 73% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 220H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark integer math test with a score of 73555 versus 64934 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 13.3% advantage.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H is rated at 45 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is rated at 25 watts.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X only, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The Intel Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370 graphics.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the superior processor in nearly every measurable workload. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds a higher average benchmark score (33989 versus 28574), and sits at a higher percentile of all CPUs (84th versus 80th). The Cinebench results alone justify a recommendation for the Ultra 5 338H for anyone prioritizing rendering or multi-threaded productivity, with leads of 31.4% in R23 multi-core and 23.5% in R20 multi-core.

The Ultra 5 338H also delivers this performance at a 25-watt TDP, compared to 45 watts for the Core 5 220H. For mobile systems where thermal headroom and battery life matter, this efficiency advantage is decisive. The newer 3 nm process node, larger per-core caches, and higher memory bandwidth all contribute to the performance-per-watt gap.

The Intel Core 5 220H retains one niche: integer math. Its 13.3% win in that specific PassMark test means software that is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic could see a modest benefit from the older chip. The Core 5 220H also offers more PCIe lanes (8 versus 4) and support for DDR4, which could matter for system integrators reusing older memory or needing more expansion bandwidth. Its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz does not translate into benchmark wins, however.

For general use, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the recommended choice from the recorded measurements. The Core 5 220H should only be considered for the narrow integer-math use case or for platforms that specifically require DDR4 support or additional PCIe lanes. The launch MSRP of $342 for the Core 5 220H provides a reference point, but the Ultra 5 338H has no recorded price, so a cost comparison is not possible from the database. The performance evidence, across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and the full PassMark suite, consistently favors the Panther Lake part.