Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The 245KF wins every single test, with the margins ranging from a modest 11.2% advantage to a commanding 153.1% lead. This is not a close contest; the desktop part dominates the mobile chip in every measured workload.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 245KF scores 5173 against the 338H's 2044, a delta of 153.1%. That is more than double the performance in a test that typically reflects everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result shows a 124.4% delta, with scores of 36647 and 16331 respectively. Such a wide multi-core margin indicates substantial differences in sustained throughput capacity.

Single-core leads persist across older Cinebench versions as well. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 245KF posts 521 versus 305, a 70.8% advantage. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 50.7% delta, with 2172 against 1441. The pattern is consistent: the desktop processor holds a strong per-thread performance edge.

Multi-core workloads follow the same direction but with varying magnitudes. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the 245KF a 47.5% lead (3693 vs 2504). Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 50.7% delta (15391 vs 10213). The R23 multi-core gap is the largest of the Cinebench suite, suggesting that longer, more demanding render workloads amplify the difference.

PassMark tests reveal where the gap narrows and where it widens. The closest result is PassMark physics, where the 245KF scores 2998 and the 338H scores 2697, a delta of only 11.2%. This indicates that the mobile chip's compute cores can keep pace in certain physics simulations, despite the overall performance deficit.

PassMark single-thread tests show a 12.8% delta, with 4715 for the 245KF and 4180 for the 338H. That is a smaller single-thread margin than the Cinebench R23 single-core gap, which suggests the specific instruction mix in PassMark's single-thread test favors the mobile chip relatively more.

The widest PassMark margin appears in data compression, where the 245KF scores 460123 versus 276539, a 66.4% delta. Data encryption shows a 56.2% lead (33381 vs 21367). Extended instructions give a 58.6% advantage (37912 vs 23906). Floating point math shows a 56.5% delta (131546 vs 84067). Integer math gives a 52.2% lead (98854 vs 64934). Random string sorting shows a 62% delta (55206 vs 34082). Prime number finding gives a 36.8% advantage (416 vs 304).

PassMark multithread shows a 50.1% lead, with 43110 against 28717. The 245KF's average benchmark score of 55093 places it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the 338H's average of 33989 lands at the 84th percentile. The 245KF's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D with an average score of 54762 and a delta of 0.6%, meaning the 245KF is essentially tied with that part. The 338H sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, which averages 34083, a delta of -0.3%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with distinct design goals. The 245KF belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop market. The 338H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, based on Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake-H codename. It uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets the mobile segment.

Both parts use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 245KF is manufactured by TSMC, while the 338H is produced by Intel's own fabs. The 245KF contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 338H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, which limits direct comparison on that front.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The 245KF offers 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 338H provides 12 cores and 12 threads, also without hyperthreading. The desktop part has two additional physical cores, which contributes to its multi-core advantages.

Base and boost clocks tell a clear story. The 245KF runs at a 4.20 GHz base and boosts to 5.20 GHz. The 338H starts at 1.90 GHz and boosts to 4.70 GHz. The 245KF's higher base clock, 4.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, is a massive difference in sustained frequency. The boost clocks differ by 0.50 GHz in favor of the desktop chip.

Cache hierarchies show structural differences. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache differs: the 245KF has 3 MB per core, while the 338H has 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache is 24 MB shared on the 245KF versus 18 MB shared on the 338H. The desktop part therefore has more cache at every level except L1.

Memory support diverges as well. The 245KF uses DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 338H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the 338H's higher memory bandwidth figure, the 245KF still wins all compute benchmarks. Neither supports ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ substantially. The 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The 338H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. This reflects the desktop part's ability to connect more expansion devices directly.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, marked as N/A. The 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics. This makes the mobile chip a complete package for systems without a discrete GPU, while the desktop part requires a separate graphics card.

The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The 338H has a locked multiplier, preventing user frequency adjustments. Release dates also differ: the 245KF launched on 2024-10-23, while the 338H is dated 2026-01-04. The 245KF has a recorded launch MSRP of $294; the 338H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The 245KF wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set, so the use-case split is straightforward from the data. The desktop processor is the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5173 versus 2044 indicates a major advantage in applications that rely on responsive single-thread execution, such as many legacy productivity tools and certain simulation workloads.

The multi-core wins, particularly the 124.4% delta in Cinebench R23, point to strong performance in rendering, video encoding, and other parallel workloads. The 245KF's 14 cores and 3 MB per-core L2 cache contribute to this result. PassMark data compression, with a 66.4% delta, suggests the desktop part handles archive operations and file compression significantly faster.

The 338H's narrower margins in PassMark physics (11.2% delta) and PassMark single-thread (12.8% delta) indicate that the mobile chip is not entirely outclassed in every scenario. Physics simulations and certain single-threaded tasks show the 338H performing closer to the desktop part. However, the 245KF still wins these tests, so the 338H does not claim victory in any measured category.

Where the 338H holds a structural advantage is in integrated graphics, since it includes Arc B370 while the 245KF has none. The database does not include GPU benchmarks for either part, so the graphics comparison remains qualitative. The 338H also offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, but this does not translate into compute benchmark wins.

The 338H's lower TDP of 25 watts versus the 245KF's 125 watts indicates a power efficiency profile that favors the mobile chip. The data does not include power consumption measurements, so the efficiency comparison is limited to the TDP specification. The 338H's mobile socket, BGA 2540, and 12-core configuration make it suitable for thin-and-light systems where thermal limits are tight.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H in every recorded benchmark. The 245KF's 17 wins against 0 for the 338H is an unambiguous result. Its average benchmark score of 55093 places it at the 91st percentile, while the 338H's 33989 average lands at the 84th percentile. The 245KF sits within 1.9% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, showing it competes at a higher performance tier.

The 338H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at a -0.3% delta, meaning the 338H is effectively tied with that mobile processor. Its position among mobile chips is respectable, but it cannot match the desktop part's compute capabilities. The 338H's advantages lie in integrated graphics, higher memory bandwidth, and a much lower TDP, none of which appear in compute benchmark scores.

For desktop users building a system with a discrete GPU, the 245KF is the obvious pick based on the data. It delivers over double the Cinebench R23 single-core performance and more than double the multi-core score. The unlocked multiplier and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes add flexibility for enthusiasts.

For mobile users or those needing a compact system, the 338H offers integrated Arc B370 graphics and a 25-watt TDP, making it viable for laptops. Its performance, while far behind the 245KF, is competitive with other mobile parts like the Core Ultra 7 165H. The 338H's locked multiplier and BGA socket mean it ships as a fixed configuration.

The choice depends on the platform and workload. The data shows no scenario where the 338H wins a compute benchmark, so the 245KF is the performance leader. The 338H's value appears in its mobile form factor, integrated graphics, and power envelope, not in raw compute scores.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF in multi-core rendering?

A: The 245KF scores 36647 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 16331 for the 338H, a 124.4% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is 50.7%, with 15391 against 10213.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 245KF boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz. The base clocks are 4.20 GHz and 1.90 GHz respectively.

Q: Does the 338H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics. The 245KF has no integrated graphics, marked as N/A.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The 338H has a higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s using LPDDR5X, while the 245KF has 102.4 GB/s using DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The 245KF has 3 MB per-core L2 and 24 MB shared L3. The 338H has 2.5 MB per-core L2 and 18 MB shared L3. Both have 192 KB L1 per core.

Q: Are the cores unlocked for overclocking?

A: The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The 338H has a locked multiplier, preventing frequency adjustments.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clock is 4.20 GHz for the 245KF versus 1.90 GHz for the 338H. Boost clock is 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP is 125 watts for the 245KF and 25 watts for the 338H. Socket is Intel Socket 1851 for the 245KF and Intel BGA 2540 for the 338H. Architecture is Arrow Lake versus Panther Lake, with codenames Arrow Lake-S and Panther Lake-H respectively. Process node is 3 nm for both, but the foundry is TSMC for the 245KF and Intel for the 338H. Transistor count is 17,800 million for the 245KF, with no recorded value for the 338H. Die size is 243 mm² for the 245KF, with no recorded value for the 338H. L2 cache is 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 24 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics is N/A versus Arc B370. Market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. Release date is 2024-10-23 versus 2026-01-04. Launch MSRP is $294 versus no recorded value. Multiplier is unlocked versus locked. Part number is SRQCY versus SA4REQ9EW.