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

Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 336H are both mobile processors from Intel’s Core Ultra lineup, but they target very different power envelopes and performance levels. The 235HX is a high-performance part from the Arrow Lake-HX series, while the 336H is a lower-power Panther Lake-H chip. The benchmark database shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the 235HX winning 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the 336H holds one notable advantage in a physics workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 235HX dominates the vast majority of workloads. It wins every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The largest margins come in floating-point math and integer math, where the 235HX leads by 57.5% and 56.6% respectively. Data compression and encryption also show substantial leads for the 235HX, at 52.1% and 53.6%. These results indicate the 235HX is clearly the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, scientific simulations, and content creation.

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins only one test: PassMark physics, scoring 2682 against 2550 for the 235HX. That is a narrow 4.9% advantage, and it suggests the 336H has a slight edge in a specific physics simulation workload, possibly due to its higher core count. However, this single win is isolated. In the multi-thread PassMark test, the 235HX leads by 43.1%, and in single-thread tests it leads by 16.7%. The 336H also trails in extended instructions by 41.8% and random string sorting by 48%. For most users, the 235HX is the superior performer across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Core Ultra 5 235HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on the Arrow Lake-HX codename, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also on a 3 nm node, but manufactured by Intel. The 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip supports hyperthreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

Cache configurations differ as well. The 235HX features 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The 336H has the same 192 KB L1 per core but only 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger L2 and L3 caches on the 235HX likely contribute to its strong performance in memory-sensitive workloads.

Clock speeds also favor the 235HX. Its base clock is 2.90 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the 336H’s 1.90 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. Power consumption is another key difference: the 235HX has a 55 W TDP, while the 336H is rated at only 25 W. The 336H uses a different socket, Intel BGA 2540, versus the BGA 2114 on the 235HX. The 235HX also supports Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, while the 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Memory support differs too: the 235HX uses DDR5 only, while the 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 336H has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 235HX. Integrated graphics are also different, with the 235HX using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU and the 336H using Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent 44.8% advantage for the 235HX in both single-core and multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 235HX scores 34731 against 23991 for the 336H. Single-core R23 shows 4903 versus 3387. These margins are near-identical, indicating the 235HX’s higher clocks and larger caches translate evenly across all rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the 235HX pulls further ahead. Floating-point math shows the largest delta at 57.5%, with scores of 129819 versus 82415. Integer math follows at 56.6%, scoring 97177 against 62070. Data encryption shows a 53.6% lead (32697 vs 21291), and data compression a 52.1% lead (426417 vs 280340). These results suggest the 235HX has significantly stronger ALU and FPU throughput, likely due to its higher boost clock and larger per-core L2 cache.

The 336H’s sole win in physics is modest. It scores 2682 versus 2550, a 4.9% margin. In the context of the other tests, this looks like an outlier rather than a pattern. The 235HX also wins the multi-thread PassMark test by 43.1% (40849 vs 28545) and random string sorting by 48% (50929 vs 34402). Even in the closest PassMark test, find prime numbers, the 235HX wins by 20.7% (361 vs 299). Single-thread performance shows a 16.7% lead for the 235HX, with scores of 4683 versus 4013.

Overall, the 235HX’s average benchmark score is 52073, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The 336H averages 34485, in the 84th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 235HX include the AMD EPYC 8124P at 52121 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i7-14700 at 52301 (0.4% ahead). The 336H sits near the Intel Core i7-13700HX at 34554 (0.2% behind) and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333 (0.4% ahead).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither chip supports hyperthreading.

Q: Why does the 235HX win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The 235HX has a much higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, a larger L2 cache of 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB, and more shared L3 cache at 24 MB versus 18 MB. Its 55 W TDP also allows sustained higher performance.

Q: Is the 336H more power efficient?

A: Yes, the 336H has a 25 W TDP compared to 55 W for the 235HX. It also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is typically used in lower-power systems.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark floating-point math, where the 235HX leads by 57.5% (129819 vs 82415). Integer math follows at 56.6%.

Q: Does the 336H win any benchmark?

A: The 336H wins PassMark physics, scoring 2682 versus 2550 for the 235HX, a 4.9% margin. This is the only test it wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: The 235HX has an average benchmark score of 52073, placing it in the 91st percentile. The 336H averages 34485, in the 84th percentile.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX for demanding workloads. It wins 16 out of 17 tests, with leads ranging from 16.7% in single-thread performance to 57.5% in floating-point math. Its higher boost clock, larger caches, and higher TDP make it the stronger chip for rendering, encryption, compression, and general compute. The 235HX also sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 84th for the 336H, and its average score of 52073 is well above the 336H’s 34485.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is a lower-power alternative. Its 25 W TDP and support for LPDDR5X memory indicate it is designed for thinner, more power-efficient laptops. It wins only the physics test, by 4.9%, and trails significantly in every other benchmark. For users prioritizing battery life and portability, the 336H may be the appropriate choice, but for raw performance, the 235HX is the clear winner based on recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX | Intel Core Ultra 5 336H |

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

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |