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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins 15 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes only 2. The most dramatic separation appears in the Cinebench R23 suite, where the 235T scores 26232 versus 16331 in multi-core, a 60.6% advantage, and 3703 versus 2044 in single-core, an 81.2% margin. These are not small gaps; they indicate fundamentally different performance tiers despite both carrying the "Ultra 5" label.

Moving through the other Cinebench versions, the pattern holds but with varying intensity. In R15 multi-core, the 235T leads 2644 to 2504, a modest 5.6% edge. R15 single-core shows a larger 22.3% gap, with the 235T scoring 373 against 305. R20 results are consistent: multi-core favors the 235T at 11017 versus 10213 (7.9%), and single-core mirrors that exact 7.9% delta with 1555 against 1441. The R23 numbers stand out as anomalous in their magnitude, suggesting the workload scales particularly well with the 235T's configuration.

PassMark tests reveal a mixed but mostly favorable picture for the 235T. Data compression shows 295100 versus 276539, a 6.7% win. Data encryption delivers 23457 against 21367, a 9.8% advantage. Floating point math is heavily in favor of the 235T: 106546 versus 84067, a 26.7% gap. Integer math follows a similar trajectory at 84244 versus 64934, a 29.7% lead. Multithread performance lands at 30918 versus 28717, a 7.7% edge. Random string sorting and single-thread tests both show 3.8% deltas, with scores of 35377 versus 34082 and 4339 versus 4180, respectively. Find prime numbers rounds out the 235T wins at 318 versus 304, a 4.6% margin.

The 338H claims its two victories in specific workloads. Extended instructions favor the 338H at 23906 versus 23212, a 2.9% edge. Physics performance is the more significant win, with the 338H scoring 2697 against 2157, a 20% advantage. These two results suggest the 338H has strengths in certain specialized instruction patterns and physics simulation tasks, but they do not offset the broad dominance of the 235T across nearly every other metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The 235T uses Arrow Lake-S, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with a 3 nm process from TSMC. The 338H uses Panther Lake, also on a 3 nm node but fabricated by Intel. The transistor count and die size are recorded for the 235T at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm², while these figures are absent for the 338H, indicating either undisclosed specifications or a different measurement approach.

Core configurations differ significantly. The 235T packs 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither supports Hyper-Threading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The 235T runs a base clock of 2.20 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the 338H operates at 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The higher clock speeds on the 235T contribute to its benchmark advantages, especially in single-threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies show structural differences. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache differs: the 235T has 3 MB per core, while the 338H has 2.5 MB per core. Total L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the 235T versus 18 MB shared on the 338H. These cache capacity differences likely influence performance in cache-sensitive workloads such as data compression and encryption, where the 235T showed consistent leads.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 235T supports DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 338H supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with higher recorded bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s. Despite the 338H's superior memory bandwidth, the 235T still outperforms it in most memory-dependent benchmarks, indicating that compute throughput matters more than raw bandwidth in these tests.

PCIe lanes present a stark contrast. The 235T offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 338H provides only 4 lanes of Gen 5. This positions the 235T as a desktop part with expansion capability, while the 338H targets mobile integration with limited external connectivity. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 235T uses Arc Xe-LPG with 24 execution units, while the 338H uses Arc B370, a more capable GPU solution.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is the stronger performer in almost every measurable category. It wins 15 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with particularly large margins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (60.6%) and single-core (81.2%). The 235T also holds a higher average benchmark score at 38561 versus 33989, and its percentile rank among all CPUs is 86 compared to 84 for the 338H.

The 338H's strengths are narrow but real. It wins in extended instructions by 2.9% and physics by 20%. These are specialized workloads, and the physics result in particular suggests the 338H handles certain simulation tasks efficiently. However, these two wins do not compensate for the 235T's dominance across rendering, math, encryption, compression, and general multithreaded performance.

Market segment explains some of the difference. The 235T is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, while the 338H is a mobile part with a 25 W TDP. The desktop part has thermal headroom for higher sustained clocks and more cores, which translates directly into benchmark superiority. The mobile part trades performance for power efficiency, and its lower power envelope limits what it can deliver in compute-heavy tests.

For users prioritizing raw throughput, rendering performance, or single-threaded speed, the data clearly favors the 235T. For those in mobile environments where power consumption and the integrated B370 graphics matter more, the 338H offers a different trade-off. The choice depends entirely on the use case, and the benchmark results provide unambiguous evidence for each part's strengths.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 235T | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 14 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU | Arc B370 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $247 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQES | SA4REQ9EW |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Neither supports additional threads beyond its core count.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 235T leads by 81.2%. The second largest is Cinebench R23 multi-core at 60.6%.

Q: Does the 338H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 338H wins in passmark extended instructions (23906 versus 23212, a 2.9% edge) and passmark physics (2697 versus 2157, a 20% advantage).

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The 338H has higher recorded memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s with LPDDR5X support, while the 235T has 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 support. Both use dual-channel configuration.

Q: What are the TDP values for each processor?

A: The 235T has a TDP of 65 W, while the 338H has a TDP of 25 W. This reflects the desktop versus mobile market segmentation.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 235T has an average benchmark score of 38561, while the 338H scores 33989. The 235T also ranks at the 86th percentile versus the 84th for the 338H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins across the broad majority of workloads. Its Cinebench R23 results, 26232 multi-core and 3703 single-core, establish it as the superior choice for rendering and general CPU-intensive tasks. The 81.2% single-core margin means applications that depend on single-thread performance will see substantial benefit from the 235T. Floating point math at 106546 versus 84067 and integer math at 84244 versus 64934 indicate strong arithmetic processing capability, useful for scientific simulations, financial modeling, and data analysis. Data compression at 295100 versus 276539 and encryption at 23457 versus 21367 show an edge in file handling and security workloads. The 235T's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it suitable for desktop builds with multiple expansion cards, high-speed storage, or discrete GPUs.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins specifically in physics and extended instructions. The physics score of 2697 versus 2157 represents a 20% advantage, which could translate to better performance in simulation or game physics workloads where the workload pattern matches the benchmark. The extended instructions result, 23906 versus 23212, suggests the 338H handles certain SIMD or specialized instruction sets more efficiently. Its higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s may benefit memory-throughput-sensitive applications despite the compute disadvantage. As a mobile part with 25 W TDP, the 338H also suits battery-conscious portable devices, and its Arc B370 integrated graphics offers a more capable GPU solution than the 235T's Arc Xe-LPG with 24 EU. The 338H's low power envelope and integrated graphics make it the appropriate choice for thin-and-light laptops where sustained performance takes a backseat to efficiency and portability.