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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, which takes 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The most dramatic separation appears in Cinebench R23, where the 245T scores 26208 versus 16331 for the 338H, a 60.5% advantage in multicore work. Single-core performance in the same test shows an even larger gap: 3699 against 2044, putting the 245T 81% ahead. These are the two biggest swings in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R15 and R20 tell a similar story, though with smaller margins. In R15 multicore, the 245T leads 2641 to 2504, a 5.5% edge. The single-core portion of R15 favors the 245T by 22% (372 versus 305). In R20, the multicore gap is 7.8% (11007 versus 10213), and the single-core gap is also 7.8% (1553 versus 1441). The consistency across Cinebench versions reinforces that the 245T holds a structural advantage in both threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

PassMark results show a more mixed picture. The 245T wins most math and memory-related tests by substantial margins: integer math 88676 versus 64934 (36.6% ahead), floating point math 108499 versus 84067 (29.1% ahead), and data encryption 23656 versus 21367 (10.7% ahead). Data compression is closer at 283812 versus 276539, a 2.6% edge. Random string sorting also lands narrowly in favor of the 245T at 34931 versus 34082, a 2.5% difference. Prime number finding shows a 6.6% lead for the 245T (324 versus 304). The multithread PassMark score favors the 245T by 7.4% (30833 versus 28717), and single-thread performance is 4.5% better (4367 versus 4180).

The 338H claims two wins. PassMark extended instructions shows the 338H ahead at 23906 versus 22071, a 7.7% margin. The other win is in PassMark physics, where the 338H scores 2697 against 2278 for the 245T, a 15.5% advantage. These two wins are notable because they point to different strengths in the 338H than the rest of the benchmark suite suggests. Extended instruction throughput and physics simulation behavior do not follow the same pattern as the Cinebench and arithmetic tests.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect the gap: the 245T sits at 38194 versus 33989 for the 338H. The 245T ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the 338H ranks in the 84th. The nearest rivals for the 245T include the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (within 0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-14490F at 38149 (within 0.1%), meaning the 245T is essentially dead even with those parts. The 338H sits closest to the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 34083 (0.3% higher) and the Intel Core i7-12800HX at 33875 (0.3% lower).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The 245T belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The 338H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the 245T, while Intel fabricates the 338H.

Core counts also diverge. The 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, also without hyperthreading. The 245T therefore offers two additional physical cores. Cache layouts differ as well. Both share the same per-core L1 of 192 KB, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 245T versus 2.5 MB per core on the 338H. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the 245T versus 18 MB on the 338H. The 245T carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 338H does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 245T uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 338H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the 245T but not on the 338H. PCIe lane counts differ substantially: the 245T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 338H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ, with the 245T using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 338H uses Arc B370.

The socket and market positioning confirm the intended use cases. The 245T fits Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part. The 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile package. The thermal design power reflects that: 65 W for the 245T versus 25 W for the 338H. The 245T has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The 338H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 245T was released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $270. The 338H has a release date of 2026-01-04 and no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The 245T wins broadly across rendering, compute, and general throughput. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the largest margin at 60.5%, which points to a major advantage in heavily threaded workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch compilation. The passmark integer math lead of 36.6% and floating point lead of 29.1% indicate the 245T handles arithmetic-heavy tasks with significantly more headroom. Single-core Cinebench R23 at 81% ahead suggests the 245T also has a strong advantage in lightly threaded applications, including many older games and productivity software that rely on one or two threads. The data encryption win of 10.7% and data compression win of 2.6% confirm the 245T is the better choice for file archiving, database work, and encrypted storage workloads.

The 338H wins in two specific areas. PassMark extended instructions shows a 7.7% lead, which covers workloads using advanced instruction sets such as AVX-512 or similar extensions. This could matter for scientific computing, certain simulation software, and specialized encoding tools. The PassMark physics win of 15.5% is more unusual. Physics simulation in PassMark tends to favor memory bandwidth and specific scheduling behavior, and the 338H's higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s against 102.4 GB/s for the 245T likely plays a role. The 338H also has a much lower TDP of 25 W versus 65 W, so mobile systems with limited cooling and battery constraints will prefer it on that basis, even if the benchmark data does not directly measure power efficiency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245T | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 14 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

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

| L2 cache per core | 3 MB | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 24 MB | 18 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU | Arc B370 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Launch MSRP | $270 | Not recorded |

The 245T has 2 more cores, higher clocks, larger caches, and more PCIe lanes. The 338H counters with higher memory bandwidth, a newer graphics solution, and a dramatically lower TDP. The transistor count and die size are only recorded for the 245T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T scores 26208, which is 60.5% higher than the 338H's 16331.

Q: Does the 338H win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes. The 338H wins PassMark extended instructions (23906 versus 22071, a 7.7% edge) and PassMark physics (2697 versus 2278, a 15.5% edge).

Q: How do the two compare on memory bandwidth?

A: The 338H supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s, while the 245T supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. The 338H has about 33.4% more recorded bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing node?

A: Both use a 3 nm process, but the 245T is fabricated by TSMC, while the 338H is fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The 245T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, versus only 4 lanes on the 338H.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each?

A: The 245T is rated at 65 W, and the 338H is rated at 25 W.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T for anyone who needs raw compute performance. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and every PassMark arithmetic test. The largest margins come in Cinebench R23, where it leads by 60.5% multicore and 81% single-core. For desktop users running rendering, video encoding, software compilation, or heavy multitasking, the 245T delivers a substantial performance advantage. Its 14 cores, 24 MB L3 cache, and 20 PCIe lanes also make it the more expandable and capable platform, especially for systems with discrete GPUs or high-speed storage. The recorded launch MSRP of $270 positions it as a mainstream desktop option.

The 338H is the right choice for mobile platforms where power limits dominate. Its 25 W TDP is less than half that of the 245T, and it uses a BGA socket designed for laptops. The higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s and the wins in extended instructions and physics show it is not without strengths. The 7.7% lead in extended instructions and 15.5% lead in physics could matter for specific scientific or simulation workloads. The Arc B370 integrated graphics also represents a newer graphics architecture than the Arc Xe-LPG 64EU on the 245T, which matters for thin-and-light notebooks without discrete GPUs.

Benchmark results indicate the 338H sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, close to parts like the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and Intel Core i7-12800HX. The 245T sits in the 86th percentile, essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core i5-14490F. The choice comes down to platform: desktop users should take the 245T for its decisive compute lead, while mobile users should take the 338H for its low power draw and portable form factor. The data does not support choosing the 338H for general desktop performance, but it is a strong mobile option within its power class.