Intel Core Ultra 5 336H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H reveals a dramatic split. The Ultra 5 336H dominates the Cinebench suite, while the Ultra 7 255H takes most of the Passmark workloads. Of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Ultra 7 255H wins 9, while the Ultra 5 336H secures 8. The margins, however, are not symmetric.

The largest single gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 336H scores 23991 against 9240 for the Ultra 7 255H. That is a 159.6% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core also favors the Ultra 5 336H by 83.8%, with scores of 3387 and 1843. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 57.9% lead for the Ultra 5 336H (10076 versus 6381), and R20 single-core shows a 58% lead (1422 versus 900). Cinebench R15 multi-core is 59.6% in favor of the Ultra 5 336H (2418 versus 1515), and R15 single-core is 35.9% higher (341 versus 251). The Cinebench results are consistent: the Ultra 5 336H is faster in every rendering test by a wide margin.

The Passmark results tell the opposite story. The Ultra 7 255H leads in integer math with 77975 against 62070, a 20.4% advantage. Floating point math goes to the Ultra 7 255H by 16.6% (98796 versus 82415). Data encryption favors the Ultra 7 255H by 9% (23395 versus 21291), and data compression favors it by 6.2% (298850 versus 280340). The Ultra 7 255H also wins Passmark multi-thread by 7% (30703 versus 28545), single-thread by 7% (4317 versus 4013), random string sorting by 4.6% (36058 versus 34402), and find prime numbers by 1.3% (303 versus 299).

The Ultra 5 336H takes the remaining Passmark tests: extended instructions by 3.3% (24542 versus 23755) and physics by 19% (2682 versus 2254). The overall average benchmark scores reflect the split: the Ultra 5 336H posts 34485, the Ultra 7 255H posts 33537. The percentile rankings are close, with the Ultra 5 336H at the 84th percentile of all CPUs and the Ultra 7 255H at the 83rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows the benchmark groupings clearly. The Ultra 5 336H is the stronger choice for rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that scales with Cinebench-style multi-threaded execution. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991 places it far outside the Ultra 7 255H's reach. Single-core Cinebench also favors the Ultra 5 336H, which suggests that the Panther Lake architecture's per-thread performance in these specific tests is substantially better.

The Ultra 7 255H wins in general-purpose math, encryption, compression, and memory-intensive sorting tasks. Its Passmark integer math and floating point math scores indicate a stronger ALU/FPU throughput. The data encryption and compression wins point to better performance in archiving, database work, and security-related operations. The single-thread Passmark result of 4317 versus 4013 also gives the Ultra 7 255H an edge in lightly threaded desktop responsiveness, despite the Cinebench single-core result going the other way.

The physics test is worth noting. The Ultra 5 336H scores 2682 against 2254 for the Ultra 7 255H, a 19% lead. Physics simulations in Passmark tend to reward memory latency and cache behavior, so this result suggests the Ultra 5 336H's cache hierarchy or memory controller performs better in that specific scenario. Extended instructions also go to the Ultra 5 336H, indicating a slight advantage in SIMD-heavy code paths.

The overall picture: the Ultra 5 336H is the rendering-oriented part, the Ultra 7 255H is the general compute part. Neither chip dominates across the board. The average benchmark score gap of 948 points (34485 versus 33537) is modest, roughly 2.8%, but the workload distribution is not uniform.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Ultra 5 336H uses Panther Lake, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 7 255H uses Arrow Lake, the Arrow Lake-H variant, also on a 3 nm process, but fabricated by TSMC. Both parts have 16 cores and 16 threads, so there is no core count difference. The lack of Hyper-Threading on either chip is consistent with the 16 threads matching 16 cores.

Cache configurations differ. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 5 336H and 3 MB per core on the Ultra 7 255H. The L3 cache is 18 MB shared on the Ultra 5 336H and 24 MB shared on the Ultra 7 255H. The larger L2 and L3 on the Ultra 7 255H likely contribute to its Passmark wins in math and compression, while the Ultra 5 336H's Cinebench dominance must come from other factors, possibly the Panther Lake core design itself.

Clock speeds also differ. The Ultra 5 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Ultra 7 255H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ultra 7 255H has the higher clock ceiling, yet it loses every Cinebench test. This reinforces that the architectural differences between Panther Lake and Arrow Lake are the deciding factor in rendering workloads.

The sockets are different: the Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540, the Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049. The TDP also differs: 25 W for the Ultra 5 336H, 28 W for the Ultra 7 255H. The PCIe implementation differs as well. The Ultra 5 336H supports Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes; the Ultra 7 255H supports Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 255H offers more PCIe lanes for expansion.

Memory bandwidth is another split. The Ultra 5 336H has 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, the Ultra 7 255H has 102.4 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel mode. The Ultra 7 255H supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 336H does not.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Ultra 7 255H includes Arc Graphics 140T. The part numbers and release dates also differ. The Ultra 5 336H released on 2026-01-04, the Ultra 7 255H on 2025-01-12. The Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, the Ultra 7 255H to the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are active production parts for the mobile market segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has an average benchmark score of 34485, compared to 33537 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multi-core difference?

A: The Ultra 5 336H scores 23991, while the Ultra 7 255H scores 9240. The Ultra 5 336H leads by 159.6%.

Q: Does the Ultra 7 255H win any tests?

A: Yes. It wins 9 of 17 head-to-head tests, including Passmark integer math (77975 versus 62070), floating point math (98796 versus 82415), data encryption (23395 versus 21291), and data compression (298850 versus 280340).

Q: Do the two chips have the same core count?

A: Yes. Both have 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 7 255H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 5 336H has 18 MB.

Q: Are both chips built on the same process node?

A: Both use a 3 nm process, but the Ultra 5 336H is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 7 255H is fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show these differences between the two parts:

• Series: Core Ultra Series 3 (Ultra 5 336H) versus Core Ultra Series 2 (Ultra 7 255H)
• Base clock: 1.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz
• TDP: 25 W versus 28 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 2540 versus Intel BGA 2049
• Architecture: Panther Lake versus Arrow Lake
• Codename: Panther Lake versus Arrow Lake-H
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• L2 cache: 2.5 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 18 MB shared versus 24 MB shared
• Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• ECC memory support: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 5, 12 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus Arc Graphics 140T
• Release date: 2026-01-04 versus 2025-01-12
• Part number: SA4RD versus SRQAN

Fields that are the same: 16 cores, 16 threads, 192 KB L1 per core, DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory support, dual-channel memory bus, mobile market segment, active production status, 3 nm process node, no unlocked multiplier, no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear workload-based selection. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the choice for rendering, 3D content creation, and any application that mirrors Cinebench's multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering paths. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991 is more than double the Ultra 7 255H's 9240, and the single-core lead of 83.8% is just as decisive. The physics test win of 19% adds further weight for simulation-style workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the choice for general compute, data processing, and security-related tasks. Its Passmark integer math lead of 20.4%, floating point lead of 16.6%, and encryption lead of 9% indicate stronger raw arithmetic throughput. The 7% single-thread Passmark win and the 7% multi-thread win also favor it in everyday desktop use, despite the Cinebench results going the other way.

The overall average benchmark scores put the Ultra 5 336H ahead by 948 points, and it sits at the 84th percentile versus the 83rd percentile for the Ultra 7 255H. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the Ultra 5 336H trades with the Intel Core i7-13700HX (0.2% behind), the Intel Core i5-13450HX (0.4% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (0.7% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (0.8% ahead). The Ultra 7 255H sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 240 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (0.4% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i5-12600HX (0.5% ahead).

Neither processor is a universal winner. The 8-9 split in head-to-head wins, combined with the massive Cinebench margins in one direction and the moderate Passmark margins in the other, means the correct pick depends entirely on the workload. For rendering and physics, take the Ultra 5 336H. For math, encryption, and general compute, take the Ultra 7 255H. The recorded data does not support a single overall recommendation beyond that.