Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a closely contested pairing between the Intel Core 9 270H and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, with the latter winning 9 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons and the former taking 8. The average benchmark scores, however, tell a different story: the Core 9 270H posts an average score of 38335 against 33989 for the Core Ultra 5 338H. This discrepancy indicates that while the Ultra 5 wins more individual tests, the Core 9 tends to win the heavily weighted multi-threaded workloads by larger margins.

The largest victory for the Intel Core 9 270H comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 97654 against 64934, a 50.4% advantage. Data compression also heavily favors the Core 9, with a score of 333785 versus 276539, a 20.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 delivers 18000 points compared to 16331, a 10.2% advantage. These results indicate that the Core 9's additional cores and threads provide a substantial edge in workloads that scale with parallel execution.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H counters with decisive wins in several specialized workloads. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Ultra 5 at 304 versus 112 for the Core 9, a 63.2% margin. Floating point math favors the Ultra 5 by 16%, with scores of 84067 and 70640 respectively. Extended instructions also show a 16% lead for the Ultra 5, posting 23906 against 20079. The Ultra 5 further wins in physics (2697 vs 1966, a 27.1% lead), data encryption (21367 vs 19369, a 9.4% lead), and single-thread PassMark (4180 vs 3944, a 5.6% lead).

Cinebench results are split across versions. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 edges ahead with 2504 against 2464, a 1.6% margin. The Core 9 wins R20 multi-core by 0.5% (10268 vs 10213) and R23 multi-core by the larger 10.2% margin noted above. Single-core Cinebench results show the Core 9 leading in R15 by 13.8% (347 vs 305) and in R20 by 0.6% (1449 vs 1441), while the Ultra 5 takes R23 single-core by a slim 0.2% (2044 vs 2040). PassMark multithread is nearly even, with the Core 9 at 28764 and the Ultra 5 at 28717, a 0.2% difference.

Random string sorting goes to the Core 9 by 8.2%, scoring 36867 versus 34082. The overall pattern shows the Core 9 dominating integer-heavy and compression workloads, while the Ultra 5 excels in floating point, encryption, and specialized instruction sets. The Core 9's 86th percentile rank among all CPUs versus the Ultra 5's 84th percentile aligns with its higher average score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H records an average benchmark score of 38335, compared to 33989 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, placing the Core 9 in the 86th percentile of all CPUs versus the 84th percentile for the Ultra 5.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Core 9 270H leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core (10268 vs 10213, a 0.5% margin) and R23 multi-core (18000 vs 16331, a 10.2% margin). The Ultra 5 338H wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 1.6% (2504 vs 2464). PassMark multithread scores are nearly identical at 28764 for the Core 9 and 28717 for the Ultra 5.

Q: Which processor wins in single-thread performance?

A: The results are split. The Core 9 270H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 13.8% (347 vs 305) and R20 single-core by 0.6% (1449 vs 1441). The Ultra 5 338H wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.2% (2044 vs 2040) and PassMark single-thread by 5.6% (4180 vs 3944).

Q: What are the biggest performance gaps between the two?

A: The largest gap favors the Core 9 270H in PassMark integer math with a 50.4% lead (97654 vs 64934). The largest gap favoring the Ultra 5 338H is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 63.2% (304 vs 112).

Q: How do the processors compare in memory-intensive tasks?

A: Data compression strongly favors the Core 9 270H, scoring 333785 versus 276539 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 20.7% lead. Random string sorting also goes to the Core 9 by 8.2% (36867 vs 34082). Data encryption favors the Ultra 5, which scores 21367 against 19369, a 9.4% lead.

Q: What does the nearest rival data show for each processor?

A: The Core 9 270H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H with an average score of 38312, a 0.1% difference. The Ultra 5 338H's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 34083, a 0.3% difference. Both processors sit within a narrow band of comparable competitors.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 270H and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H represent fundamentally different architectural approaches. The Core 9 270H is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by Intel. This process node difference is substantial, with the 3 nm node offering a much newer manufacturing technology.

Core configuration differs significantly between the two. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. This means the Core 9 supports hyperthreading with 6 additional threads over its core count, while the Ultra 5 runs with a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. The Core 9's additional cores and threads contribute directly to its multi-threaded benchmark wins.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 9 270H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while the Core 9 has a larger shared L3 pool.

Memory support differs entirely. The Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Ultra 5's memory bandwidth specification is included in the database, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 9.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 9 270H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Core 9 offers double the PCIe lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc B370 graphics.

Both processors are unlocked for overclocking, use Intel BGA sockets (1744 for the Core 9, 2540 for the Ultra 5), target the mobile market segment, and are listed as active in production. The Core 9 270H was released on December 17, 2024, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a release date of January 4, 2026.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count shows 14 cores for the Core 9 270H versus 12 cores for the Core Ultra 5 338H. Thread count differs more sharply: 20 threads for the Core 9 versus 12 threads for the Ultra 5. Base clock speeds are 2.70 GHz for the Core 9 and 1.90 GHz for the Ultra 5. Boost clock speeds are 5.80 GHz for the Core 9 and 4.70 GHz for the Ultra 5.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the Core 9 270H is rated at 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is rated at 25 W. The sockets are different (Intel BGA 1744 vs Intel BGA 2540). Architecture names differ (Raptor Lake vs Panther Lake), as do codenames (Raptor Lake-H vs Panther Lake) and generations (Core 9 Raptor Lake Refresh vs Ultra 5 Panther Lake-H).

Process nodes differ at 10 nm for the Core 9 and 3 nm for the Ultra 5. Cache specifications show L1 at 80 KB per core for the Core 9 versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra 5, L2 at 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 at 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support lists DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9, while the Ultra 5 supports LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s.

PCIe lanes differ at 8 lanes for the Core 9 versus 4 lanes for the Ultra 5, both at Gen 5. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the Core 9 and Arc B370 for the Ultra 5. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $697; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5. Part numbers are SRQ6V for the Core 9 and SA4REQ9EW for the Ultra 5. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 270H delivers its strongest results in workloads that benefit from higher core and thread counts. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 10.2% advantage, and PassMark integer math shows a 50.4% lead. Data compression favors the Core 9 by 20.7%, and random string sorting by 8.2%. These results point to content creation, compilation, and general productivity workloads as the Core 9's territory. Its 45 W TDP and 5.80 GHz boost clock support sustained multi-threaded performance. The 86th percentile ranking and average score of 38335 place it slightly ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, its closest rival, by 0.1%.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in workloads that emphasize floating point math, encryption, and specialized instruction execution. Floating point math shows a 16% lead, extended instructions also show a 16% lead, and find prime numbers shows a 63.2% lead. Physics performance favors the Ultra 5 by 27.1%, and data encryption by 9.4%. Single-thread PassMark performance goes to the Ultra 5 by 5.6%. Its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, combined with the 3 nm process node, appear to benefit these specific workloads. The Ultra 5's 25 W TDP and 4.70 GHz boost clock suggest efficiency-oriented operation. Its average score of 33989 and 84th percentile rank place it within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H.

The multi-core Cinebench results are mixed, with the Core 9 winning R20 and R23 while the Ultra 5 wins R15. PassMark multithread is effectively tied at 0.2% difference. This indicates that in broadly parallel workloads, the two processors are closer than the average score difference suggests. The Core 9's wins tend to be larger in magnitude, while the Ultra 5's wins are more numerous but often smaller, except in specialized tests.

The Core 9 270H is the stronger choice for integer-heavy computation, compression, and multi-threaded rendering. The Core Ultra 5 338H is better suited for floating point simulation, encryption, and single-thread PassMark tasks. The data shows a trade-off between raw multi-threaded throughput and specialized computational efficiency, with the Core 9 holding the higher overall average benchmark score.