Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33989, compared to 31483 for the Intel Core 7 240H. The Ultra 5 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 84 versus 82 for the Core 7.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H leads in every single-core test. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044 is 15.9% higher than the Core 7's 1719, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4180 is 9.5% ahead of the 3782 recorded by the Core 7.

Q: Does the Core 7 240H win any benchmarks at all?

A: Yes, one test. The Core 7 240H wins PassMark integer math with a score of 80396, which is 23.8% ahead of the 64934 posted by the Core Ultra 5 338H. The remaining 16 head-to-head tests all go to the Ultra 5.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite fewer threads, the Ultra 5 still wins the multithreaded PassMark test with 28717 versus 23975, a 16.5% margin.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H is built on a 3 nm process node, while the Core 7 240H uses a 10 nm node. The Ultra 5 also belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, whereas the Core 7 is based on Raptor Lake.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X only. The Ultra 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is listed for the Core 7.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Intel Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture, also known as Panther Lake-H, manufactured on a 3 nm node. This process node difference is substantial, with the Ultra 5 employing a much smaller transistor geometry.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Core 7 240H packs 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores supporting hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores but only 12 threads, suggesting a design without hyper-threading on its cores. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 5's newer architecture delivers higher throughput in most workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 7 240H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H has substantially larger per-core caches: 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, but a smaller 18 MB shared L3. This trade-off favors the Ultra 5 for single-threaded data locality while giving the Core 7 more total L3 for shared workloads.

Socket compatibility differs completely. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable platforms. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core 7 provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are another differentiation point. The Core 7 240H includes Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370 graphics, a newer GPU architecture from Intel.

Power characteristics show a notable split. The Core 7 240H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts. This means the Ultra 5 achieves higher benchmark scores while being rated for significantly lower power consumption.

Memory controllers differ as well. The Core 7 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H as the stronger performer. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (33989 versus 31483), and ranks in the 84th percentile among all CPUs compared to the Core 7's 82nd percentile. The Ultra 5 achieves these results with a 25 watt TDP versus the Core 7's 45 watt TDP, making it both faster and more power-efficient on paper.

The single exception is PassMark integer math, where the Core 7 240H leads by 23.8%. This suggests that for workloads heavily dependent on integer arithmetic, the Core 7's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz (versus 4.70 GHz for the Ultra 5) and its 16 threads provide an advantage. However, this is a narrow niche. Every other category, including encryption, compression, floating-point math, physics simulation, and all Cinebench tests, favors the Ultra 5.

For buyers who prioritize raw multi-core rendering performance, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16331 beats the Core 7's 15764 by 3.5%, and its R20 multicore lead expands to 16.2% (10213 versus 8562). Single-core performance also favors the Ultra 5 across the board, with margins ranging from 9.5% to 18.4%.

The Core 7 240H retains relevance for integer-heavy tasks and for users requiring DDR4 memory support. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 16 threads may benefit specific server-like workloads. But the benchmark data shows the Ultra 5 dominating the broader performance landscape, and its 3 nm process gives it a generational advantage that the Core 7 cannot overcome.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

|----------------|-------------------|--------------------------|

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | Arc B370 |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | None listed |

| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part Number | SRQ6TQ5ML | SA4REQ9EW |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 338H controls nearly every benchmark in the comparison. Its largest wins come in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 304 against the Core 7's 102, a 66.4% advantage. This indicates substantially stronger integer and algorithmic throughput per cycle. PassMark floating-point math also shows a wide gap: 84067 versus 58905, a 29.9% lead for the Ultra 5.

Data encryption favors the Ultra 5 heavily at 21367 versus 15155, a 29.1% margin. Extended instructions follow at 23906 versus 16897, a 29.3% advantage. Physics simulation shows the Ultra 5 ahead by 36.1% (2697 versus 1723). These results suggest the Panther Lake architecture delivers major gains in specialized instruction execution and floating-point workloads.

Cinebench results consistently favor the Ultra 5. In R15, the multicore score is 2504 versus 2360 (5.8% lead), and the single-core score is 305 versus 249 (18.4% lead). R20 shows a 16.2% multicore advantage (10213 versus 8562) and a matching 16.2% single-core advantage (1441 versus 1208). R23 narrows the multicore gap to 3.5% (16331 versus 15764) but widens the single-core gap to 15.9% (2044 versus 1719).

PassMark multithread performance favors the Ultra 5 at 28717 versus 23975, a 16.5% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 at 34082 versus 28866, a 15.3% lead. Data compression is closer: 276539 versus 271774, a 1.7% edge for the Ultra 5. Single-thread scores show the Ultra 5 at 4180 versus 3782, a 9.5% advantage.

The Core 7 240H's sole victory is PassMark integer math, where it posts 80396 against 64934, a 23.8% lead. This is the only category where the Core 7's higher boost clock and 16 threads translate into a decisive performance edge.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the winner in rendering, encryption, compression, physics, floating-point math, and all single-threaded tests. Its dominance in Cinebench R23 single-core (2044 versus 1719) and R15 single-core (305 versus 249) makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software. The 29.1% encryption advantage and 29.9% floating-point advantage suggest strong suitability for scientific computing, financial modeling, and secure data handling.

The Core Ultra 5 also wins the multithreaded PassMark test with 28717 versus 23975, meaning it handles general parallel workloads better despite having 16 threads on the Core 7 versus 12 on the Ultra 5. Its 25 watt TDP makes it the more efficient option for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited.

The Intel Core 7 240H wins exclusively in PassMark integer math with 80396 versus 64934, a 23.8% margin. This points to an edge in integer-heavy operations such as database indexing, certain compression algorithms, and some financial calculations. The Core 7's 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 16 threads may also benefit workloads that thrash shared memory. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock is the highest of the two, which helps in bursty single-threaded integer tasks.

For users constrained to DDR4 memory or needing 8 CPU PCIe lanes, the Core 7 240H offers platform compatibility advantages. The Ultra 5's LPDDR5X-only support and 4 CPU PCIe lanes may limit expansion options. The Core 7 also has a listed launch MSRP of $502, while the Ultra 5 has no listed launch price in the database.

Overall, the data supports the Core Ultra 5 338H for virtually all mainstream and performance-oriented mobile workloads. The Core 7 240H remains relevant for niche integer-heavy applications and legacy memory compatibility.