Intel Core Ultra 5 225F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, with the desktop part winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the mobile chip takes four wins, including some of the most demanding workloads.

The largest single victory for the 225F comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the 336H posts 23991 points against the 225F's 16467, a 31.4% advantage. That result flips the multicore narrative that other Cinebench versions suggest. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 225F wins 2660 to 2418, a 10% margin. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the 225F leads 11059 to 10076, a 9.8% edge. The 336H's dominance in R23 multicore stands as its strongest overall result.

Single-core results are similarly split. The 336H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 15.8%, scoring 341 versus 287. It extends that lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, posting 3387 against 1893, a 44.1% gap. However, the 225F wins Cinebench R20 single-core 1561 to 1422, a 9.8% difference. The PassMark single-thread test also favors the 225F, which scores 4397 versus 4013, a 9.6% margin.

In the PassMark suite, the 225F shows consistent advantages across most integer and floating-point workloads. Data compression favors the 225F by 10.9%, with scores of 310843 versus 280340. Encryption tasks show a narrower 6.4% lead for the 225F, 22648 to 21291. Extended instruction performance goes to the 225F by 14.2%, 28027 to 24542. Prime number finding gives the 225F a 17.7% win, 352 to 299. Floating-point math sees a 12.3% edge for the 225F, 92554 to 82415. Integer math results in a 7% lead, 66417 to 62070. Multithreaded PassMark performance goes to the 225F by 8.6%, 31004 to 28545. Random string sorting favors the 225F by 8.5%, 37325 to 34402.

The 336H takes one additional PassMark victory in physics simulation, scoring 2682 against 2430, a 9.4% advantage. That win, combined with its Cinebench R23 results, gives the mobile chip four wins total.

Overall average benchmark scores place the 225F at 37313, which ranks it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The 336H averages 34485, sitting in the 84th percentile. The gap between the two parts is roughly 8%, with the 225F holding a higher percentile ranking.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F as the stronger all-around performer in most measured workloads. It wins the majority of both Cinebench and PassMark tests, and its average benchmark score of 37313 exceeds the 336H's 34485 by about 8%. The 225F also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking, 85th versus 84th.

The 336H, however, delivers exceptional results in specific sustained multicore and single-core scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23991 is 31.4% higher than the 225F's, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3387 is 44.1% higher. These are not minor margins; they indicate the 336H has a fundamentally different performance profile under long-running threaded loads.

Users building for sustained rendering or heavy parallel processing should look at the 336H's R23 results as the primary indicator. Users who prioritize mixed everyday workloads, data compression, encryption, or math-heavy tasks should favor the 225F, which wins those PassMark categories by margins ranging from 6.4% to 17.7%.

The 225F is a desktop part with a 65 TDP and an active production status. The 336H is a mobile processor with a 25 TDP, also active. The 225F carries a launch MSRP of $231, while the 336H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture families. The 225F uses Arrow Lake, specifically the Arrow Lake-S desktop variant, and belongs to Core Ultra Series 2. The 336H uses Panther Lake, specifically the Panther Lake-H mobile variant, and belongs to Core Ultra Series 3.

Both parts are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 225F is fabricated by TSMC, while the 336H is fabricated by Intel. The 225F lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 336H has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache layouts differ between the two. Both share the same L1 size of 192 KB per core. The 225F has 3 MB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The 336H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither part includes stacked 3D V-Cache.

The 225F has no integrated graphics, while the 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. This is a significant architectural difference for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

The 225F uses an Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part. The 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part. The 225F provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the 336H provides 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Specification Differences

The table below outlines where the two processors differ in recorded specifications.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 225F | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 10 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $231 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SRQD2SRVF9 | SA4RD |

The 336H offers more cores and threads, 16 versus 10, but operates at lower clocks. Its base clock of 1.90 GHz is well below the 225F's 3.30 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.60 GHz trails the 225F's 4.90 GHz. The 336H's memory bandwidth is higher at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, and it supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Q: Which processor wins Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins, scoring 23991 against the 225F's 16467, a 31.4% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark multithread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F leads with a score of 31004, which is 8.6% higher than the 336H's 28545.

Q: Does either chip have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The 225F supports DDR5. The 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark score?

A: The 225F has an average benchmark score of 37313, while the 336H averages 34485. The 225F ranks in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, and the 336H ranks in the 84th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded PassMark, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark. It also wins Cinebench R15 multicore, Cinebench R20 multicore, and Cinebench R20 single-core. These wins cover a broad range of everyday compute tasks, from file compression to encryption to general math workloads. The 225F's higher base and boost clocks, 3.30 GHz and 4.90 GHz, contribute to its consistent lead in these shorter and mixed workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins Cinebench R15 single-core, Cinebench R23 multicore, Cinebench R23 single-core, and PassMark physics. Its Cinebench R23 multicore victory, with a 31.4% margin, shows that the chip's 16 cores and threads can be leveraged effectively in long-running threaded workloads. The 44.1% single-core lead in R23 indicates strong per-core performance under sustained load, despite a lower boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The physics simulation win also suggests solid performance in simulation-style tasks.

For users deciding between the two, the 225F is the better fit for general desktop productivity, file handling, encryption tasks, and mixed math workloads. The 336H is the better fit for sustained multicore rendering, long single-threaded tasks, and physics simulations, with the added benefit of integrated graphics for mobile platforms. The 225F's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more expansion headroom, while the 336H's 12 lanes reflect its mobile positioning. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a deciding factor.