Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two distinct performance profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H dominates every Cinebench test, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins most Passmark workloads.

Cinebench results are decisive for the 336H. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 336H scores 23991 against 14769 for the 235, a 38.4% advantage. The single-core R23 result shows a similar gap: 3387 versus 2085, again 38.4% ahead. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (10076 versus 6202, 38.4% ahead) and R20 single-core (1422 versus 875, 38.5% ahead). Cinebench R15 multicore gives the 336H 2418 against 1488, a 38.5% lead, and R15 single-core gives it 341 versus 210, also 38.5% ahead. The consistency of these margins across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage for the 336H in rendering workloads.

Passmark tells a different story. The 235 wins 10 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. The largest margins come in floating point math, where the 235 scores 117951 against 82415, a 43.1% lead. Integer math shows a 41.7% advantage (87948 versus 62070). Data compression favors the 235 by 39.4% (390711 versus 280340), and random string sorting by 42.4% (48980 versus 34402). Data encryption shows a 37.6% edge (29293 versus 21291), and extended instructions a 33.5% gap (32752 versus 24542). The 235 also leads in find prime numbers (371 versus 299, 24.1%), Passmark multithread (37816 versus 28545, 32.5%), and single-thread performance (4516 versus 4013, 12.5%).

The 336H takes Passmark physics by a narrow margin, 2682 versus 2570, just 4.2% ahead. This is the only Passmark test the 336H wins, and it is a small one.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 235 records an average of 46062, while the 336H averages 34485. That difference places the 235 at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the 336H sits at the 84th percentile.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors with opposite strengths. The 336H is the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering and any workload that relies on the same execution paths. Its multithreaded Cinebench scores are roughly 38% higher across every version of the test, and single-core Cinebench performance shows the same margin. That consistency is unusual and points to a genuine per-thread advantage, not just extra cores.

The 235 wins the broader Passmark suite. Its leads in floating point math, integer math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting range from 24.1% to 43.1%. These are substantial margins across diverse workload types. The 235 also holds a 12.5% single-thread Passmark lead, which contradicts the Cinebench single-core results and suggests the two processors handle different instruction mixes with different efficiency.

The 336H sits near the Intel Core i7-13700HX in the database, with a delta of 0.2% behind that rival's average score. The 235 sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, just 0.1% ahead. The 235 belongs in the same performance tier as high-end mobile and desktop parts, while the 336H competes with slightly older HX-series chips and desktop Ryzen 7 parts.

Where Each One Wins

The 336H wins all Cinebench tests, which are heavily weighted toward sustained multi-threaded rendering and ray tracing workloads. The 38.4% to 38.5% margins in both multicore and single-core Cinebench tests indicate that the 336H has a substantial per-core advantage in these specific tasks. Users running 3D rendering, video encoding that follows similar execution patterns, or other Cinebench-like workloads would see the 336H deliver meaningfully higher scores.

The 235 wins the majority of Passmark tests, including the math-heavy workloads that often correlate with scientific computing, financial modeling, and data processing. Its 43.1% lead in floating point math is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. The 235 also leads data compression by 39.4%, which matters for file archiving and database workloads. Its 37.6% encryption advantage suggests stronger performance for security-related processing. The 235's 12.5% Passmark single-thread lead indicates faster response in lightly threaded applications, even though Cinebench single-core tests show the opposite.

Passmark physics is the only test the 336H wins outside Cinebench, and the margin is small at 4.2%. Physics simulations in Passmark may favor the 336H's architecture, but the difference is minor compared to the Cinebench gaps.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, compared to 34485 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H. The 235 sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the 336H sits at the 84th percentile.

Q: Why does the 336H win all Cinebench tests but lose most Passmark tests?

A: The Cinebench suite consistently favors the 336H by 38.4% to 38.5% across all versions and core counts. The Passmark suite favors the 235 in math, compression, encryption, and sorting workloads, with margins from 24.1% to 43.1%. The two suites exercise different execution paths, and each processor has a clear architectural edge in one set.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin in this comparison?

A: The largest margin is the 43.1% lead for the 235 in Passmark floating point math, where it scores 117951 against 82415 for the 336H.

Q: How close are these processors to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 235 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HX. The 336H is 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-13700HX and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13450HX.

Q: Does the 336H have any Passmark win?

A: Yes, the 336H wins Passmark physics with a score of 2682 against 2570 for the 235, a 4.2% margin. This is its only Passmark victory.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The 235 wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The 336H wins 7, but all six Cinebench tests are among its victories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and architectures. The 235 is part of Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. The 336H is part of Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) generation.

Both use a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 235 is manufactured by TSMC, while the 336H is manufactured by Intel. The 235 has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 336H has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Cache configurations differ. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 235 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The 336H has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither processor supports 3D V-Cache.

The 235 uses an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU solution, while the 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 235 supports DDR5 memory only, while the 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 235 has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the 336H has 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The 235 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, while the 336H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540. The 235 was released on 2025-01-06, and the 336H was released on 2026-01-04. The 235 has a launch MSRP of $257; no launch MSRP is recorded for the 336H.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ. The 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyperthreading, so core count equals thread count in both cases.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The 235 runs at a higher frequency at both ends, yet the 336H still wins all Cinebench tests, which indicates the 336H's architecture extracts more performance per clock in those workloads.

Thermal design power differs by a wide margin. The 235 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 336H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 336H delivers its Cinebench wins at a much lower power envelope.

Memory bandwidth differs. The 235 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the 336H has 115.2 GB/s. The 336H's higher bandwidth may contribute to its Cinebench advantages.

The 235 has a part number of SRQAS and a production status of Active. The 336H has a part number of SA4RD and also has a production status of Active. Both are currently in production.

The market segments differ: the 235 targets desktop systems, while the 336H targets mobile systems. This explains the socket differences, TDP differences, and the memory support differences. The 235's larger L3 cache of 24 MB versus 18 MB for the 336H may help its Passmark math and compression scores, while the 336H's lower TDP and mobile positioning suggest different design priorities.