Intel Core Ultra 5 225F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 225F and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H represent two different approaches to Intel’s 3 nm manufacturing, one aimed at desktop towers and the other at thin-and-light laptops. The 225F is an Arrow Lake-S desktop chip on Socket 1851, while the 338H is a Panther Lake-H mobile processor on BGA 2540. Despite the shared “Ultra 5” branding, the data shows different core counts, clock speeds, memory support, and benchmark results. The 225F wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the 338H counters with a higher single-core Cinebench score and faster physics performance. The following analysis breaks down where each chip excels based on recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clocks of each processor?

A: The 225F has a 3.30 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. The 338H has a 1.90 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two chips?

A: The 225F has a 65 W TDP, while the 338H is rated at 25 W.

Q: Which processor supports which memory type?

A: The 225F supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 338H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics. The 225F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each?

A: The 225F has an average benchmark score of 37313, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families and are fabricated for different segments. The 225F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, also on a 3 nm process but manufactured by Intel. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the 338H.

Cache layouts differ substantially. Both chips share a 192 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 225F versus 2.5 MB per core on the 338H. The 225F has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 338H has 18 MB. This gives the desktop chip a larger total cache footprint, which can help in workloads that repeatedly access a working set.

Memory support splits them further apart. The 225F runs DDR5 with dual-channel access and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 338H runs LPDDR5X with dual-channel access and a higher 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, which is typical for a mobile part that relies on onboard memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the 225F offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 338H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics, while the 225F has no integrated graphics.

The socket situation is entirely different: the 225F uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop motherboards, while the 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, indicating a soldered mobile package. The 225F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the 338H has a 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The 225F dominates multi-core and integer-heavy workloads. Across the head-to-head results, it wins 14 out of 17 tests. Its largest advantages come in PassMark extended instructions (17.2% ahead), find prime numbers (15.8% ahead), data compression (12.4% ahead), and floating point math (10.1% ahead). Cinebench R20 multi-core also favors the 225F by 8.3%, and PassMark multi-thread shows an 8% lead. This pattern points to sustained all-core rendering, encryption, and data processing tasks where the desktop chip’s higher boost clock and larger L3 cache help.

The 338H wins only 3 tests, but they are notable. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the 338H at 2044 versus 1893 for the 225F, a 7.4% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core also goes to the 338H by 5.9%. PassMark physics favors the 338H by 9.9%, with a score of 2697 versus 2430. These wins suggest the mobile chip has an edge in lightly threaded workloads and in physics simulation, which often relies on single-core performance and specific instruction patterns.

For general use, the 225F is the stronger all-around performer in the database. The 338H is competitive in single-threaded tasks, but the 225F pulls ahead in nearly every multi-threaded and math-heavy benchmark. The 338H’s lower TDP and integrated graphics make it suited for battery-conscious laptops, but that advantage is not reflected in raw benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 10 (225F) vs 12 (338H)
• Threads: 10 (225F) vs 12 (338H)
• Base clock: 3.30 GHz (225F) vs 1.90 GHz (338H)
• Boost clock: 4.90 GHz (225F) vs 4.70 GHz (338H)
• TDP: 65 W (225F) vs 25 W (338H)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 (225F) vs Intel BGA 2540 (338H)
• Architecture: Arrow Lake (225F) vs Panther Lake (338H)
• Foundry: TSMC (225F) vs Intel (338H)
• Transistors: 17,800 million (225F) vs not listed (338H)
• Die size: 243 mm² (225F) vs not listed (338H)
• L2 cache: 3 MB per core (225F) vs 2.5 MB per core (338H)
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared (225F) vs 18 MB shared (338H)
• Memory support: DDR5 (225F) vs LPDDR5X (338H)
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (225F) vs 136.5 GB/s (338H)
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 20 lanes (225F) vs Gen 5, 4 lanes (338H)
• Integrated graphics: N/A (225F) vs Arc B370 (338H)
• Market segment: Desktop (225F) vs Mobile (338H)
• Release date: 2025-01-06 (225F) vs 2026-01-04 (338H)
• Launch MSRP: $231 (225F) vs not listed (338H)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the 225F comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 28027 against 23906, a 17.2% advantage. This test often reflects AVX-style workload efficiency, and the desktop chip’s higher clocks and larger cache appear to deliver. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 15.8% lead for the 225F (352 vs 304), and data compression is 12.4% ahead (310843 vs 276539). Floating point math also favors the 225F by 10.1% (92554 vs 84067). Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the 225F an 8.3% win (11059 vs 10213), matching the same 8.3% margin in Cinebench R20 single-core (1561 vs 1441). PassMark multi-thread shows 31004 versus 28717, an 8% lead. Random string sorting is 9.5% ahead (37325 vs 34082), data encryption is 6% ahead (22648 vs 21367), and PassMark single-thread is 5.2% ahead (4397 vs 4180). Cinebench R15 multi-core goes to the 225F by 6.2% (2660 vs 2504), and integer math is 2.3% ahead (66417 vs 64934). Cinebench R23 multi-core is the closest multi-core result, with the 225F winning by only 0.8% (16467 vs 16331).

The 338H’s wins are concentrated in single-core and physics tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the 338H at 2044 versus 1893, a 7.4% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core gives the 338H a 5.9% lead (305 vs 287). PassMark physics shows the largest margin for the 338H, 2697 versus 2430, a 9.9% advantage. These results indicate that the mobile chip can outperform the desktop part in certain lightly threaded scenarios, particularly where peak single-core speed matters more than sustained multi-core throughput.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F for most computing tasks. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including all major multi-core tests and most single-thread PassMark measurements. Its average benchmark score of 37313 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, slightly above its nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900HK, which sits 0.3% behind. The 225F is the correct choice for desktop builders who prioritize raw throughput in rendering, compression, encryption, and math workloads. Its 65 W TDP is higher, but that is the tradeoff for a 3.30 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, 12 cores, and 12 threads. Its average benchmark score of 33989 puts it in the 84th percentile, with its closest rival being the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 0.3% ahead. The 338H wins in Cinebench R23 single-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, and PassMark physics. This makes it the better option for users who need strong single-threaded responsiveness and physics simulation in a laptop package, plus integrated Arc B370 graphics and LPDDR5X memory support. However, in every other measured test, the 225F delivers higher scores, often by double-digit percentages. For absolute performance, the desktop chip is the winner; for mobile efficiency with competitive single-core speed, the 338H is the one.