Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows 17 recorded benchmark comparisons between the Intel Core 7 251TE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The Core 7 251TE takes 12 of those wins, while the Core Ultra 5 336H claims 5. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, which makes the overall picture more nuanced than a simple win count.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core 7 251TE is consistently ahead across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2572 against 2418, a 6.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 362 versus 341, a 6.2% lead. Moving to R20, the multicore gap remains at 6.4% (10717 vs 10076), and the single-core gap sits at 6.3% (1512 vs 1422). In R23, the pattern holds: multicore 25518 vs 23991 (6.4% ahead) and single-core 3602 vs 3387 (6.3% ahead). These are remarkably consistent margins, indicating that the Core 7 251TE delivers a uniform performance advantage across both lightly threaded and heavily threaded Cinebench workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals a more divided story. The Core 7 251TE wins data compression by a substantial 19.3% (334399 vs 280340). It also leads in data encryption by 4.2% (22176 vs 21291), floating point math by 3.9% (85607 vs 82415), and random string sorting by 15.2% (39643 vs 34402). The largest single delta in the entire comparison appears in integer math: the Core 7 251TE scores 125739 versus 62070 for the Core Ultra 5 336H, a massive 102.6% advantage. That is more than double the output, a striking result for a workload that heavily depends on core count and thread execution.

The Core Ultra 5 336H, however, fights back in several Passmark subtests. Extended instructions show a 30.8% win for the 336H (24542 vs 16974). Find prime numbers goes the same way, with the 336H scoring 299 versus 140, a 53.2% margin. Physics also favors the 336H at 2682 versus 1938, a 27.7% advantage. Finally, single-thread performance as measured by Passmark goes to the 336H: 4013 versus 3568, an 11.1% lead. This single-thread result is notable because it runs counter to the Cinebench single-core numbers, where the Core 7 251TE was ahead by over 6%. The two CPUs appear to have different strengths depending on the instruction mix and the exact threading model used by each test.

The overall average benchmark score in the database places the Core 7 251TE at 41650, compared to 34485 for the Core Ultra 5 336H. That is a substantial aggregate gap, but the individual deltas show that the 336H is far from a clean sweep victim. Its wins in extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and Passmark single-thread are all double-digit margins except for the single-thread result, which is still an 11.1% edge. The Core 7 251TE, meanwhile, dominates in integer-heavy and memory-throughput-sensitive tasks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to two different usage profiles. The Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger overall performer for multi-threaded and integer-heavy workloads. Its 102.6% lead in integer math is the clearest signal: any application that relies on integer arithmetic, such as certain compilation tasks, database operations, or scientific computing loops, will see a major advantage from this chip. Its wins in compression (19.3%), random string sorting (15.2%), and all three Cinebench multicore tests (each around 6.4%) reinforce the picture of a CPU that handles sustained parallel loads with ease. The 251TE also ranks at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, versus the 84th percentile for the 336H.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, on the other hand, shows a clear edge in specific single-threaded and specialized instruction workloads. Its 11.1% Passmark single-thread win, combined with the 30.8% extended instructions advantage and the 53.2% prime number finding lead, indicates that this chip has a different microarchitectural focus. The physics score (2682 vs 1938) suggests the 336H handles physics simulations particularly well relative to its overall compute output. For users running workloads that stress extended instruction sets (such as SIMD-heavy code) or that depend on fast single-core response, the 336H is the more capable silicon.

The aggregate scores tell the story plainly: the Core 7 251TE averages 41650 across all benchmarks, while the Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485. That difference of roughly 20% in overall average aligns with the 12 versus 5 win split. The Core 7 251TE is the default choice for raw throughput, especially for multi-core rendering, compression, and integer math. The Core Ultra 5 336H is the pick when the workload profile specifically favors its strengths in extended instructions, prime number computation, physics, and single-thread Passmark performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and target different market segments. The Core 7 251TE is a desktop part built on Bartlett Lake, using the Intel Socket 1700. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile processor from the Panther Lake family (Panther Lake-H architecture), using the Intel BGA 2540 socket. It is built on a 3 nm process node, also at Intel's foundry, though its die size is not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Note that the 336H has no hyperthreading: its thread count equals its core count. The 251TE, by contrast, has 8 extra threads beyond its core count, indicating simultaneous multithreading support.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 251TE uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The 336H has larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. So the 336H gives each core more private cache, while the 251TE offers twice the total L3 capacity.

Memory support differs as well. The 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel memory and a measured bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, but no ECC support. The 336H's faster memory bandwidth could contribute to its relative strength in certain memory-sensitive tasks.

PCIe lanes differ: the 251TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 336H's newer graphics architecture and its mobile positioning are consistent with its 25 W TDP, versus the 251TE's 45 W TDP.

Clock speeds show a trade-off. The 251TE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The 336H has a higher base clock of 1.90 GHz but a lower boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The higher boost on the 251TE helps explain its Cinebench single-core wins, while the higher base clock on the 336H may contribute to its Passmark single-thread advantage. The release dates place the 251TE as a 2025-01-12 launch, with the 336H following later on 2026-01-04.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 251TE has 8 more cores and 16 more threads than the 336H.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE boosts to 5.40 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz. The 251TE has a 0.80 GHz higher boost clock, but the 336H has a higher base clock at 1.90 GHz versus 1.40 GHz.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark integer math, where the Intel Core 7 251TE scores 125739 versus 62070 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, a 102.6% advantage. The second largest gap is in find prime numbers, where the 336H wins by 53.2% (299 vs 140).

Q: Which CPU has the better single-threaded Passmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H scores 4013 in Passmark single-thread, versus 3568 for the Intel Core 7 251TE. That is an 11.1% lead for the 336H. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 251TE wins 3602 vs 3387, a 6.3% margin.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What process nodes are used for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE is built on a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is built on a 3 nm process node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins in all six Cinebench tests, with margins between 6.2% and 6.4%. It also wins Passmark data compression (19.3%), data encryption (4.2%), floating point math (3.9%), integer math (102.6%), multithread (5.2%), and random string sorting (15.2%). These wins cover rendering, compression, encryption, floating point, and integer workloads. The 251TE's 24-core, 32-thread configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache gives it a clear advantage in heavily parallel tasks that can use many threads and large shared cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins four distinct Passmark subtests plus the Passmark single-thread measure. Its extended instructions score (24542 vs 16974) represents a 30.8% lead, indicating strong SIMD or specialized instruction execution. Its find prime numbers score (299 vs 140) is a 53.2% advantage, suggesting efficient handling of modular arithmetic and prime sieving algorithms. Its physics score (2682 vs 1938) is 27.7% higher, pointing to better performance in physics simulation workloads. Its Passmark single-thread score (4013 vs 3568) shows an 11.1% edge in that specific single-threaded test.

For use cases, the split is clear. The Core 7 251TE suits multi-core rendering, video encoding, software compilation, database compression, and any integer-heavy compute. Its 36 MB of L3 cache and 32 threads give it headroom for parallel workloads that scale with core count. The Core Ultra 5 336H fits workloads that emphasize extended instruction sets, physics calculations, prime number generation, and the specific single-threaded Passmark test. Its larger per-core L1 (192 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB) caches, along with its 3 nm process node, contribute to its efficiency in these targeted areas. The 336H also operates at a lower 25 W TDP, making it suitable for mobile platforms, whereas the 251TE's 45 W TDP aligns with desktop usage.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every hardware specification in the database. Core and thread counts: 24 cores and 32 threads for the 251TE versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 336H. Base clock: 1.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP: 45 W versus 25 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Panther Lake. Generation: Core 7 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H). Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Die size: 215 mm² versus not recorded. L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC support: yes versus no. PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 12 lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2026-01-04. Part number: SRQAXQ5ZG versus SA4RD. The 251TE has a launch MSRP of $384; the 336H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers.