Intel Core Ultra 5 336H vs Intel Core Ultra 7 266V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, which wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 336H is 34,485, placing it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 266V averages 23,297 and sits at the 76th percentile. The gap between the two is substantial, with the Ultra 5 336H holding a 48.0% advantage in average score.

The largest single win for the Ultra 5 336H appears in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 2,682 against 1,608 for the Ultra 7 266V, a margin of 66.8%. This test typically reflects the efficiency of the core topology and scheduling behavior under sustained load, and the data indicates a clear structural advantage for the 336H. The find prime numbers test shows the second largest delta at 56.5%, with scores of 299 and 191 respectively, confirming that the 336H handles integer-heavy algorithmic workloads with notably higher throughput.

Data encryption and extended instructions tests both show deltas of 54.0% and 54.1% respectively. The 336H records 21,291 in encryption versus 13,822 for the 266V, and 24,542 versus 15,928 in extended instructions. These workloads are sensitive to both core count and per-core execution resources, and the 336H's wider configuration delivers consistent gains.

Random string sorting shows a 50.2% delta, with scores of 34,402 and 22,905. Data compression follows closely at 49.9%, with 280,340 against 187,050. Integer math shows a 49.4% delta, with 62,070 versus 41,558. The multithread benchmark records a 46.7% delta, with 28,545 versus 19,461. Floating point math shows a 44.8% delta, with 82,415 versus 56,923.

The Cinebench suite reinforces the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 336H scores 23,991 against 16,544 for the 266V, a delta of 45.0%. Single-core R23 shows 3,387 versus 2,335, a delta of 45.1%. The R20 multicore test shows 10,076 versus 6,948, and R20 single-core shows 1,422 versus 980, both with deltas of 45.0% and 45.1% respectively. R15 multicore and single-core mirror this: 2,418 versus 1,667 and 341 versus 235, both at 45.1% delta.

The narrowest margin between the two processors is in the PassMark single-thread test. The 336H scores 4,013 versus 3,943 for the 266V, a delta of only 1.8%. This is the only benchmark where the two chips are close, indicating that their per-core performance is broadly similar, and the massive overall gap stems from the 336H's additional cores and higher sustained throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 336H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantage rather than by any reversal of results. In heavily parallel workloads such as rendering, physics simulation, encryption, and compression, the 336H leads by margins of roughly 45% to 67%. These are workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the 336H's configuration is clearly better suited to them.

The Ultra 7 266V comes closest in single-threaded performance. The PassMark single-thread delta is just 1.8%, which suggests that for lightly threaded tasks such as basic office productivity, web browsing, or legacy application compatibility, the two processors would feel nearly identical. The 266V also consumes less power, with a TDP of 17 watts against 25 watts for the 336H, so in scenarios where battery life and thermal envelope are the primary constraints, the 266V may be the more appropriate choice despite its lower scores.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the 336H is the clear selection across all recorded workloads. The Cinebench results, which are widely used as a proxy for content creation performance, show a consistent 45% advantage in both single-core and multicore tests. The 336H also holds a massive lead in the PassMark multithread test at 46.7%, which is representative of heavily threaded professional applications.

The 266V does have a higher boost clock, 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the 336H, and a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. However, these clock advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The 336H's higher core count and larger shared L3 cache overcome the clock deficit. The 266V also supports a higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the 336H, yet this does not produce a winning result in any memory-sensitive benchmark recorded here.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations. The Ultra 5 336H is based on Panther Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with a generation label of Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H). The Ultra 7 266V uses Lunar Lake architecture and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with a generation label of Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake). Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ: the 336H is fabricated by Intel, while the 266V is fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts diverge sharply. The 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The 336H doubles the core count of the 266V, which explains the large multicore deltas.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both processors share the same L1 cache size at 192 KB per core and the same L2 cache at 2.5 MB per core. The L3 cache, however, is larger on the 336H at 18 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the 266V. The larger L3 cache on the 336H provides more capacity for shared data across its 16 cores.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the 266V uses Arc 140V. Both are mobile processors, but the graphics architecture belongs to different generations, matching the overall architecture split.

Memory support shows a notable difference. The 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the 266V supports LPDDR5X with the caveat that support depends on the motherboard. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The measured memory bandwidth is higher on the 266V at 136.5 GB/s compared to 115.2 GB/s on the 336H, yet this does not produce a benchmark advantage.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the 266V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The 336H offers three times the PCIe lane count, which matters for systems with multiple high-bandwidth devices such as GPUs and NVMe storage.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, the 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ, with the 336H at 1.90 GHz and the 266V at 2.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the 336H at 4.60 GHz and the 266V at 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs: the 336H is rated at 25 watts, the 266V at 17 watts. The 336H uses an Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the 266V uses Intel BGA 2833. The process node is the same at 3 nm, but the foundry differs: Intel for the 336H, TSMC for the 266V.

L3 cache differs: 18 MB shared on the 336H versus 12 MB shared on the 266V. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 192 KB per core and 2.5 MB per core respectively. Memory bandwidth differs: 115.2 GB/s for the 336H versus 136.5 GB/s for the 266V. PCIe lane count differs: 12 lanes for the 336H versus 4 lanes for the 266V, both Gen 5.

The integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics on the 336H versus Arc 140V on the 266V. The release dates differ, with the 266V releasing earlier than the 336H. The 336H has part number SA4RD, while the 266V has part number SRPMMSRPMY. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both support ECC memory only in the sense that the ECC memory field is false for both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has an average benchmark score of 34,485, compared to 23,297 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V. The 336H also ranks at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the 266V ranks at the 76th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The 336H leads by 45.0% in Cinebench R23 multicore, scoring 23,991 versus 16,544. The PassMark multithread test shows a 46.7% delta, with scores of 28,545 versus 19,461. The largest multicore-related margin is 66.8% in the PassMark physics test.

Q: Is the single-thread performance similar between the two?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the 336H at 4,013 against 3,943 for the 266V, a delta of only 1.8%. This is the closest result in the entire benchmark set, indicating that per-core performance is nearly equivalent.

Q: What are the main differences in core configuration?

A: The 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 266V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading. The 336H also has a larger L3 cache at 18 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the 266V.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The 266V has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz and a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz. The 336H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. Despite the clock disadvantage, the 336H wins all recorded benchmarks.

Q: Which processor uses less power?

A: The 266V has a TDP of 17 watts, while the 336H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 266V also offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the 336H, though this does not translate into benchmark wins.