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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct benchmark comparison between the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H shows a clear overall winner: the 235H takes 14 of the 17 recorded tests, while the 336H wins only 3. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In the Cinebench suite, the 235H delivers a consistent 6.7% advantage across all six tests. The R15 multicore score of 2580 against 2418, the R20 multicore score of 10751 against 10076, and the R23 multicore score of 25598 against 23991 all show the same relative gap. Single-core results follow the identical pattern: R15 at 364 versus 341, R20 at 1517 versus 1422, and R23 at 3613 versus 3387. This uniformity across rendering workloads suggests a fundamental clock-speed or architectural efficiency advantage for the 235H rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Passmark suite reveals where each processor excels. The 235H dominates integer math with a 19.6% lead, scoring 74247 against 62070. Floating point math also favors the 235H by 13.5%, with scores of 93509 and 82415 respectively. Data encryption shows an 8.6% edge for the 235H at 23121 versus 21291, and data compression comes in at 7.7% ahead, 301979 versus 280340. The multithread score gives the 235H a 5.4% margin at 30091 against 28545, while random string sorting shows a 5.2% advantage at 36208 versus 34402. Single-thread performance favors the 235H by 8.6%, with scores of 4359 and 4013.

The 336H claims its wins in specific computational patterns. Extended instructions show a 4.8% lead for the 336H, scoring 24542 against 23354. The find prime numbers test delivers a dramatic 20.1% win for the 336H at 299 versus 239, and the physics test shows the largest single delta of the entire comparison at 26%, with the 336H scoring 2682 against 1985. These results indicate that the 336H has particular strengths in specialized workloads that exercise its newer architecture, even as it trails in general-purpose throughput.

The average benchmark scores place the 235H at 37522 against 34485 for the 336H, a difference of roughly 8.8%. The percentile rankings are close, with the 235H at 85 and the 336H at 84. The rival comparisons contextualize these numbers: the 235H sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F and 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-13900HK, while the 336H lands within 0.8% of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 336H offers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 235H.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The 235H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the 336H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: How does the 336H compare in the physics test?

A: The 336H scores 2682 in the Passmark physics test, which is 26% higher than the 235H's score of 1985. This represents the largest single-test advantage for either processor.

Q: Which processor uses a different foundry?

A: The 235H uses TSMC as its foundry, while the 336H uses Intel as its foundry. Both are built on a 3 nm process node.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the clear choice for general compute workloads. Its 19.6% lead in integer math and 13.5% lead in floating point math make it suitable for scientific calculations, financial modeling, and engineering software that relies on arithmetic throughput. The 8.6% single-thread advantage translates to faster response in everyday applications, and the 8.6% encryption advantage supports secure communications and data protection tasks. The 5.4% multithread win and 7.7% compression win indicate solid performance for content creation, file archiving, and parallel rendering workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins where its architectural differences matter most. The 26% physics advantage points to better performance in simulation and physics-based workloads, which could benefit game physics, particle systems, or computational fluid dynamics. The 20.1% find prime numbers win suggests an affinity for integer-heavy prime factorization tasks, relevant to cryptography and number theory applications. The 4.8% extended instructions lead indicates that software leveraging newer instruction sets will run faster on the 336H.

For multi-core rendering, the 235H holds a consistent 6.7% edge across all three Cinebench versions. This makes it the better option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and photo editing that use CPU-based pipelines. The 336H, despite having 2 more cores, cannot overcome the 235H's higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency in these workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The 235H operates with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the 336H operates at 1.90 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. This clock difference explains much of the 235H's benchmark advantage in single-threaded and lightly threaded tests.

Core counts differ: the 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count in both cases. The 336H's additional 2 cores do not translate into a performance win in the recorded benchmarks, as the 235H wins all multicore tests.

The L2 cache differs per core: the 235H has 3 MB per core, while the 336H has 2.5 MB per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache and maintain 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The memory bandwidth favors the 336H at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, although both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration.

The socket and platform differ significantly. The 235H uses Intel BGA 2049, while the 336H uses Intel BGA 2540. This means they are not interchangeable in a motherboard or laptop chassis. The PCIe configuration also differs: the 235H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 235H features Arc Graphics 140T, while the 336H features Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are locked for overclocking.

Architecture Differences

The 235H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. The 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. It is fabricated by Intel on the same 3 nm process node.

This foundry difference is notable: TSMC fabricates the 235H, while Intel fabricates the 336H. Both use a 3 nm process, but the manufacturing techniques and design rules differ between the two foundries. The 336H's newer Panther Lake architecture introduces changes that manifest in its benchmark profile, particularly the wins in physics, prime number finding, and extended instructions.

The 336H's higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s may reflect architectural improvements in the memory controller. The 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes on the 336H, compared to 8 on the 235H, provide more expansion bandwidth for peripherals such as GPUs or NVMe storage.

The release dates differ by roughly one year: the 235H was released in January 2025, while the 336H was released in January 2026. The 336H represents a newer generation, yet the recorded benchmarks show it trailing in most tests, suggesting that architectural changes prioritized different performance characteristics rather than raw throughput.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the stronger processor for the majority of workloads. Its 14 wins out of 17 tests, including all six Cinebench tests and the majority of Passmark tests, make it the safer choice for users prioritizing general performance, rendering, and compute-intensive tasks. The 6.7% consistent lead in Cinebench across every version demonstrates reliable multi-core and single-core rendering performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, despite having 2 more cores and a newer Panther Lake architecture, falls behind in most measurements. Its wins are concentrated in physics simulation, prime number finding, and extended instructions, which may appeal to users running specialized scientific or cryptographic workloads. The 26% physics advantage is substantial and could make a meaningful difference in applications that rely heavily on that specific metric.

Users should weigh the 235H's broad performance superiority against the 336H's targeted strengths. The 235H's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz and its larger per-core L2 cache of 3 MB versus 2.5 MB contribute to its wins in single-threaded and integer-heavy tasks. The 336H's additional cores and higher memory bandwidth do not overcome these disadvantages in the recorded benchmarks.

The 235H also holds a slight edge in overall ranking, sitting at the 85th percentile versus the 84th percentile for the 336H. Its average benchmark score of 37522 compares favorably to the 34485 average for the 336H. For most users, the 235H delivers better all-around performance, while the 336H serves a narrower set of specialized use cases where its architectural strengths align with the workload.