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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H shows a dominant performance profile for the desktop part. Across 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the 235T wins 15 while the 336H takes only 2. The margin of victory, however, varies substantially depending on the workload.

The largest advantage for the 235T appears in PassMark integer math, where it scores 84,244 against 62,070 for the 336H, a lead of 35.7%. Floating point math tells a similar story: the 235T delivers 106,546 versus 82,415, a 29.3% advantage. These two results indicate that the desktop chip has a clear edge in raw arithmetic throughput, likely reflecting its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz compared to 4.60 GHz on the mobile part.

Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 235T scores 26,232 while the 336H records 23,991, a 9.3% gap. The single-core R23 test shows the same delta: 3,703 versus 3,387, again 9.3%. Cinebench R20 and R15 mirror this pattern, with the 235T leading by 9.3% in multi-core and 9.4% in single-core across both tests. This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural performance advantage rather than workload-specific quirks.

Data encryption is another notable win for the 235T. It scores 23,457 against 21,291, a 10.2% margin. Data compression shows a smaller but still positive edge: 295,100 versus 280,340, or 5.3%. Prime number finding favors the 235T by 6.4% (318 versus 299), and multithread performance gives it an 8.3% lead (30,918 versus 28,545). Random string sorting is close, with the 235T ahead by only 2.8% (35,377 versus 34,402). Single-thread PassMark results show an 8.1% advantage for the 235T (4,339 versus 4,013).

The 336H claims its first win in PassMark extended instructions, scoring 24,542 against 23,212 for the 235T, a 5.4% margin. This is a meaningful result because it suggests the newer Panther Lake architecture handles specialized instruction sets more efficiently. The second and larger win comes in PassMark physics, where the 336H scores 2,682 versus 2,157, a substantial 19.6% advantage. Physics simulations often rely on specific execution patterns, and the mobile chip clearly excels there despite losing most other tests.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: the 235T sits at 38,561 with an 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the 336H averages 34,485 at the 84th percentile. The 235T also lands close to its nearest rivals, within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-14500 and 0.4% of the Intel Xeon w3-2525. The 336H trails the Intel Core i7-13700HX by 0.2% and sits 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13450HX.

Where Each One Wins

The 235T dominates general-purpose computing tasks. Its wins span integer math, floating point math, encryption, compression, prime finding, and multithreaded workloads. For users running Cinebench-style rendering, data processing, or number-crunching applications, the data shows a consistent 9% to 36% performance advantage. The desktop chip also wins every single-threaded test, which points to higher per-core efficiency despite having fewer cores overall: 14 cores and 14 threads versus 16 cores and 16 threads on the 336H.

The 336H carves out a narrower but distinct niche. Its extended instructions score suggests better handling of advanced SIMD or specialized instruction workloads. The physics test result is more dramatic: a 19.6% lead indicates that the Panther Lake architecture's execution engine is particularly strong in physics simulation workloads. These two wins, while isolated, hint at architectural differences that could matter in specific applications like scientific computing or certain game physics engines.

The PassMark physics result deserves closer examination. The 336H scores 2,682 while the 235T manages only 2,157. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark suite. It stands in contrast to the multithread test, where the 235T leads by 8.3%. The divergence suggests that the 336H's core design, built on Panther Lake with 2.5 MB L2 cache per core, handles sequential dependency chains in physics calculations more effectively than the 235T's Arrow Lake layout with 3 MB L2 per core.

In practical terms, the 235T is the clear choice for desktop productivity, content creation, and any workload that scales with raw compute throughput. The 336H, despite its lower average score, offers a specific advantage in physics-based tasks and extended instructions that could tip the balance for specialized users.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a straightforward verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H in the vast majority of measured scenarios. With 15 wins out of 17 tests, the desktop chip leads by margins ranging from 2.8% in random string sorting to 35.7% in integer math. Its average benchmark score of 38,561 versus 34,485 for the 336H confirms the overall hierarchy.

Users seeking maximum compute performance should look at the 235T. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock, 65 W TDP, and desktop socket configuration deliver superior results in Cinebench rendering, PassMark arithmetic, encryption, and compression. The 235T also ranks at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, two points higher than the 336H.

The 336H appeals only to those with workloads that match its specific strengths. Physics simulation and extended instruction sets are the two areas where it wins, and the physics margin of 19.6% is significant enough to matter in that niche. Its 25 W TDP also indicates a power-efficient mobile design, though the data does not include power consumption measurements to quantify that difference.

The 235T's nearest rival comparisons reinforce its standing: it sits 0.1% above the Intel Core i5-14500 and 0.4% above the Intel Xeon w3-2525. The 336H, meanwhile, sits 0.2% below the Intel Core i7-13700HX and 0.7% above the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. These positions place both chips in similar competitive territory, but the 235T holds a clear edge in the head-to-head matchup.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

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

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

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

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the 235T leads by 35.7% with a score of 84,244 versus 62,070.

Q: In which benchmark does the 336H perform best relative to the 235T?

A: The 336H wins PassMark physics by 19.6%, scoring 2,682 against 2,157 for the 235T.

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

A: The 235T has an average benchmark score of 38,561, while the 336H averages 34,485.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No, the 235T supports DDR5 only, while the 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families within Intel's Core Ultra lineup. The 235T belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake, built on the Arrow Lake-S design. The 336H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the 235T, while Intel fabricates the 336H.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the 235T: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 336H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The 235T uses the Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop market, while the 336H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. Both have 192 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 235T versus 2.5 MB per core on the 336H. The L3 cache is larger on the desktop chip: 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared on the mobile part. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Memory support also diverges. The 235T accepts only DDR5, while the 336H handles both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth favors the mobile chip at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the desktop part, despite both using dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The 235T offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics are not identical: the 235T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the 336H employs Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The 235T was released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $247. The 336H released on 2026-01-04 and has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are actively in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Their part numbers are SRQES for the 235T and SA4RD for the 336H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. Core count is the most obvious: the 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the 235T and 1.90 GHz for the 336H. Boost clocks show a wider gap: 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

Thermal design power is substantially different. The 235T is rated at 65 W, while the 336H draws only 25 W. This reflects their intended market segments: desktop for the 235T and mobile for the 336H.

Cache configurations differ as noted earlier: L2 is 3 MB per core on the 235T versus 2.5 MB per core on the 336H, and L3 is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core.

Memory support is another differentiator. The 235T supports only DDR5, while the 336H adds LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth favors the 336H at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe connectivity is not equal: the 235T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 336H delivers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the 235T using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU and the 336H using Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Production status is Active for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 235T has a release date of 2025-01-06 and a launch MSRP of $247; the 336H has a release date of 2026-01-04 with no launch MSRP recorded. Part numbers are SRQES for the 235T and SA4RD for the 336H. Both processors support DDR5 memory, and neither supports ECC.