Intel Core i7-13800H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H and Intel Core i7-13800H represent two distinct approaches to mobile computing, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a decisive shift: the newer Ultra 5 336H wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, yet the older i7-13800H retains clear dominance in specific integer-heavy workloads. Both processors occupy the 84th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 34485 and 34988 respectively, placing them in the same performance tier despite their generational gap.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear recommendation for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the superior all-round performer. It holds a 30.7% advantage over the i7-13800H across every Cinebench test, from R15 single-core to R23 multi-core. This consistency is remarkable — no architectural quirk or workload exception disrupts the pattern. For content creation, rendering, or any task relying on Cinebench-style workloads, the Ultra 5 336H is the definitive choice.

However, the i7-13800H is not obsolete. Its 33% lead in PassMark integer math and 6.3% edge in data compression indicate that applications heavily dependent on these operations will favor the older chip. Users running encryption-heavy tasks, extended instruction sets, or prime number calculations should look exclusively at the Ultra 5 336H, which leads by 20.1%, 36.3%, and 160% respectively in those categories. The i7-13800H is a niche pick for integer math specialists, while the Ultra 5 336H serves as the versatile daily driver.

The i7-13800H carries a launch MSRP of $457, which buyers may consider when evaluating its position as the older product. The Ultra 5 336H has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two chips embody fundamentally different design philosophies. The Ultra 5 336H uses Intel’s Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, while the i7-13800H relies on the mature Raptor Lake architecture built on a 10 nm node. This process advantage likely explains much of the Ultra 5’s efficiency and performance gains, though the data does not directly measure power consumption.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The Ultra 5 336H packs 16 cores and 16 threads, suggesting a homogeneous design without hyper-threading. The i7-13800H counters with 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores, plus hyper-threading on the performance side. Despite having fewer cores, the i7-13800H’s 20 threads provide more simultaneous execution contexts — yet it still loses most multi-threaded tests.

Cache hierarchies tell a similar story. The Ultra 5 336H allocates 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The i7-13800H uses smaller per-core allocations of 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, but compensates with a larger 24 MB L3 cache. The i7-13800H’s die size is listed at 257 mm², while the Ultra 5 336H has no die size data available.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 5 336H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-13800H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, though its bandwidth is not listed. The Ultra 5 336H also provides 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, versus 8 lanes on the i7-13800H. Integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 5 336H features Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the i7-13800H ships with Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the most striking. Across all six tests — R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multi-core variants — the Ultra 5 336H wins by exactly 30.7%. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-for-clock efficiency advantage rather than workload-specific optimization. The R23 multi-core score of 23991 versus 18358 demonstrates a substantial 5633-point gap, while the single-core R23 score of 3387 versus 2591 shows the Ultra 5’s per-thread superiority.

PassMark results reveal a more nuanced picture. The Ultra 5 336H dominates in extended instructions (24542 vs 18011, a 36.3% lead) and floating point math (82415 vs 66579, up 23.8%). Its prime number finding score of 299 versus 115 represents a 160% advantage — the largest margin in any test. Physics performance favors the Ultra 5 336H by 39.4% (2682 vs 1924), and multi-thread performance shows a 7.5% lead (28545 vs 26545).

The i7-13800H wins two tests decisively. Integer math scores 92589 versus 62070, a 33% advantage that indicates superior ALU throughput. Data compression reaches 299179 versus 280340, a 6.3% edge. These wins suggest the i7-13800H’s architecture possesses specialized strength in integer-heavy operations that the Ultra 5 336H cannot match.

Single-thread performance favors the Ultra 5 336H with a 13.3% margin (4013 vs 3543), reinforcing its per-core superiority. Random string sorting shows a narrow 3.7% lead for the Ultra 5 336H (34402 vs 33188), indicating near-parity in that specific workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 versus the i7-13800H’s 18358, a 30.7% advantage.

Q: Does the i7-13800H have any significant benchmark wins?

A: Yes, it leads by 33% in PassMark integer math (92589 vs 62070) and by 6.3% in data compression (299179 vs 280340).

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the i7-13800H has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The i7-13800H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Which chip has better single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 5 336H wins all single-core Cinebench tests by 30.7% and PassMark single-thread by 13.3%.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process, while the i7-13800H uses a 10 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, and 3D modeling based on its Cinebench dominance. Its extended instruction and floating-point advantages suggest suitability for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload leveraging AVX or similar extensions. The 160% lead in prime number finding points to cryptographic and number-theoretic applications. Data encryption performance, up 20.1%, makes it attractive for security-focused tasks. The physics benchmark win of 39.4% indicates strength in simulation workloads.

The i7-13800H’s integer math advantage makes it the pick for database operations, compression algorithms, and any application where integer arithmetic dominates. Its data compression win, though modest at 6.3%, could matter for archival tools or file systems. The larger 24 MB L3 cache versus 18 MB may benefit workloads with large working sets, although the benchmark data does not directly confirm this.

The i7-13800H’s higher 5.20 GHz boost clock versus 4.60 GHz on the Ultra 5 336H does not translate into benchmark wins, suggesting the newer architecture’s instructions-per-clock efficiency overcomes the frequency deficit. The i7-13800H’s 45 W TDP versus 25 W TDP on the Ultra 5 336H indicates higher power consumption, though the data does not measure real-world energy use.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 with Panther Lake architecture, while the i7-13800H is a Core 13th Gen part using Raptor Lake. Process nodes are 3 nm versus 10 nm. Core counts differ: 16 vs 14, and thread counts differ even more dramatically: 16 vs 20.

Clock speeds show the i7-13800H with higher figures — 2.50 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost versus 1.90 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. TDP is nearly double on the i7-13800H: 45 W versus 25 W. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 2540 on the Ultra 5 336H versus Intel BGA 1744 on the i7-13800H.

Cache allocations differ in both size and distribution. The Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB L1 per core and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 18 MB shared L3. The i7-13800H has 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, with 24 MB shared L3. Memory support overlaps on DDR5 but diverges elsewhere: the Ultra 5 336H adds LPDDR5X, while the i7-13800H retains DDR4 compatibility. Memory bandwidth is listed only for the Ultra 5 336H at 115.2 GB/s.

PCIe lanes favor the Ultra 5 336H with 12 Gen 5 lanes versus 8 on the i7-13800H. Integrated graphics differ entirely: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. Release dates are 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 5 336H and 2023-01-03 for the i7-13800H. The i7-13800H has a launch MSRP of $457, while the Ultra 5 336H has none listed. Both processors are unlocked multipliers, active production, and lack ECC memory support.