Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

The Verdict

The database results present a fascinating split: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 11 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 6. The average benchmark score tells the broader story, with the 235 at 46062 versus the 338H at 33989, a gap of roughly 35.5%. The 235 also sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the 338H lands at the 84th percentile.

The 235 is the desktop part with a 65 TDP, and it dominates in PassMark workloads: data compression (390711 versus 276539), data encryption (29293 versus 21367), extended instructions (32752 versus 23906), floating point math (117951 versus 84067), integer math (87948 versus 64934), multithread (37816 versus 28717), and random string sorting (48980 versus 34082). The 338H, a mobile part with a 25 TDP, strikes back decisively in Cinebench R15 and R20, both multi-core and single-core, and narrowly in PassMark physics (2697 versus 2570).

The verdict from the data: the 235 is the stronger all-around processor for sustained compute-heavy desktop tasks, especially those relying on integer, floating-point, and encryption throughput. The 338H demonstrates that a lower-power mobile chip can outperform a desktop chip in certain rendering workloads, specifically the older Cinebench versions, while also delivering a higher memory bandwidth figure. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering performance in a mobile form factor, the 338H has clear appeal. For everything else in the PassMark suite, the 235 is the consistent winner.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and foundries. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is part of Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Both are 3 nm parts, but the manufacturing source differs.

Core counts diverge: the 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache differs: 3 MB per core on the 235 versus 2.5 MB per core on the 338H. The L3 cache also differs: 24 MB shared on the 235 versus 18 MB shared on the 338H.

The 235 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The 338H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 235 draws 65 TDP, while the 338H draws 25 TDP. The 235 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 235 has a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors; the 338H does not have recorded die size or transistor counts. The 235 has a launch MSRP of $257; the 338H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Memory support differs: the 235 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 338H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having fewer cores and a lower clock, the 338H offers higher memory bandwidth. PCIe lanes also differ: the 235 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 338H has Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: the 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU, while the 338H uses Arc B370. Both have ECC memory disabled and both have locked multipliers.

The release dates are close: the 235 released on 2025-01-06, and the 338H released on 2026-01-04. Both are active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results produce a clear pattern: the 338H wins every R15 and R20 test by wide margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 338H scores 2504 against the 235's 1488, a 40.6% advantage. In R15 single-core, the 338H scores 305 against 210, a 31.1% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the 338H scores 10213 against 6202, a 39.3% advantage. In R20 single-core, the 338H scores 1441 against 875, again a 39.3% advantage.

The R23 results narrow the picture. In R23 multi-core, the 338H still wins, scoring 16331 against 14769, but the margin shrinks to 9.6%. In R23 single-core, the 235 takes its first Cinebench win, scoring 2085 against 2044, a slim 2% advantage. This suggests the 338H's advantage is most pronounced in older Cinebench versions, while the newer R23 test brings the two much closer together.

The PassMark suite flips the script. The 235 wins every single PassMark test except physics. The biggest win is in random string sorting, where the 235 scores 48980 versus 34082, a 43.7% edge. Data compression follows at 41.3% (390711 versus 276539), floating point math at 40.3% (117951 versus 84067), and data encryption at 37.1% (29293 versus 21367). Extended instructions show a 37% gap (32752 versus 23906), integer math 35.4% (87948 versus 64934), and multithread 31.7% (37816 versus 28717). Find prime numbers shows a 22% gap (371 versus 304). Single-thread performance goes to the 235 at 4516 versus 4180, an 8% advantage. The only PassMark win for the 338H is physics, where it scores 2697 versus 2570, a 4.7% edge.

The overall win count is 11 for the 235 and 6 for the 338H. The 338H's wins are concentrated in Cinebench R15 and R20, plus PassMark physics. The 235's wins cover the rest of the PassMark suite and Cinebench R23 single-core.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two are as follows. The 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads; the 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clock: 3.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP: 65 versus 25. Socket: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Arrow Lake versus Panther Lake. Codename: Arrow Lake-S versus Panther Lake. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 17,800 million versus not recorded. Die size: 243 mm² versus not recorded. L2 cache: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache: 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 20 lanes versus Gen 5, 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU versus Arc B370. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2025-01-06 versus 2026-01-04. Launch MSRP: $257 versus not recorded. Part number: SRQAS versus SA4REQ9EW.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins, scoring 16331 against the 235's 14769, a 9.6% advantage.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins, scoring 4516 against the 338H's 4180, an 8% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 24 MB shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 18 MB shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins in the majority of benchmark categories. Its advantages are most pronounced in PassMark data compression (41.3% ahead), floating point math (40.3% ahead), data encryption (37.1% ahead), extended instructions (37% ahead), integer math (35.4% ahead), multithread (31.7% ahead), and random string sorting (43.7% ahead). It also wins in find prime numbers, single-thread performance, and Cinebench R23 single-core. These results indicate strength in general-purpose desktop computing, encryption, compression, and math-heavy workloads. The 235 is the desktop processor with 14 cores, 65 TDP, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, and it delivers the higher average benchmark score of 46062.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (40.6% ahead), R15 single-core (31.1% ahead), R20 multi-core (39.3% ahead), R20 single-core (39.3% ahead), R23 multi-core (9.6% ahead), and PassMark physics (4.7% ahead). This is a mobile processor with 12 cores, 25 TDP, and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. Its wins are concentrated in rendering workloads and physics simulation. The 338H also offers higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and integrates the Arc B370 graphics, whereas the 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

The data suggests a workload-dependent choice. For Cinebench-style rendering, especially older R15 and R20 tests, the 338H is clearly superior despite lower core count and clock speed. For PassMark-based assessments of compression, encryption, math, and multithread throughput, the 235 is the stronger part. The 338H achieves its Cinebench wins while drawing only 25 TDP, which points to notable architectural efficiency in the Panther Lake design. The 235 counters with a higher boost clock, larger caches, and more PCIe lanes. The two processors serve different market segments, desktop versus mobile, and the benchmark data reflects that split: the desktop part dominates general compute, while the mobile part excels in specific rendering and physics workloads.