Intel Core Ultra 5 336H vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H and the Intel Processor 300 occupy entirely different segments of the processor market, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The Core Ultra 5 336H delivers a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 23991, while the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the Intel Processor 300 means the comparison relies on architectural and specification differences rather than direct performance measurements.

The Core Ultra 5 336H posts a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 10076 and a single-core score of 1422. Its Cinebench R15 results show 2418 multi-core and 341 single-core. In PassMark testing, the Core Ultra 5 336H achieves a multi-thread score of 28545 and a single-thread score of 4013. The Intel Processor 300 has no equivalent entries, so no head-to-head delta can be calculated from the database.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 336H is 34485, placing it at the 84th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700HX with an average score of 34554, a delta of -0.2 percent, and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333, a delta of 0.4 percent. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X scores 34260, a delta of 0.7 percent, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 34222, a delta of 0.8 percent. These margins are tight, indicating the Core Ultra 5 336H sits within a narrow performance band among its closest competitors.

The Intel Processor 300 holds a 50th percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 0, meaning the database contains no measured performance data for this part. The Core Ultra 5 336H, by contrast, has seventeen recorded benchmark entries spanning Cinebench and PassMark workloads. The data shows the Core Ultra 5 336H as the only processor of the two with measurable performance characteristics.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice for workloads requiring multi-threaded throughput. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide substantial parallelism, reflected in a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991. The Intel Processor 300, with 2 cores and 4 threads, cannot match that level of parallel execution, though the database lacks direct benchmark scores to quantify the difference.

The Intel Processor 300 targets a different use case entirely. Its 3.90 GHz base clock, with no boost clock listed, suits basic desktop operations where single-thread responsiveness matters more than core count. The Core Ultra 5 336H has a lower base clock of 1.90 GHz but boosts to 4.60 GHz, giving it both high single-thread potential and massive multi-thread capability.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Core Ultra 5 336H sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile. For users whose workloads scale with cores, the data points squarely to the Core Ultra 5 336H. For users needing a simple desktop processor, the Intel Processor 300 offers a different trade-off, though the lack of benchmark data limits direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and carries the Panther Lake-H generation label. The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, also manufactured by Intel, and belongs to the Raptor Lake-S generation. The process node difference is substantial, with the 3 nm node allowing denser transistor packing and potentially better power efficiency.

The Core Ultra 5 336H features 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 features 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock listed. Its cache includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

The thermal design points differ accordingly. The Core Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts. This means the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers far higher core counts and thread counts while consuming less thermal headroom, a direct result of the more advanced 3 nm process node.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The Xe3 architecture represents a newer graphics generation, though the database does not include graphics benchmark scores for either part.

The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a measured memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the database lists no memory bandwidth figure for it. Both processors lack ECC memory support.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700. This reflects their market segments: the Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile processor, while the Intel Processor 300 is a desktop processor.

The Core Ultra 5 336H offers PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Processor 300 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Processor 300 provides more PCIe lanes, which suits desktop configurations with multiple expansion cards.

The Core Ultra 5 336H has a die size not listed in the database, while the Intel Processor 300 has a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process, while the Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process.

The Core Ultra 5 336H was released on 2026-01-04, while the Intel Processor 300 was released on 2024-01-07. The Intel Processor 300 has a launch MSRP of $82. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no launch MSRP listed.

The part numbers differ as well: the Core Ultra 5 336H has part number SA4RD, and the Intel Processor 300 has part number SRN3J. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the clock speed difference?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no boost clock listed.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H uses a 3 nm process node. The Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process node.

Q: Which processor supports more memory types?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What are the market segments for these processors?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H is a mobile processor using the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Intel Processor 300 is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1700.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins decisively in multi-threaded workloads. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with an 18 MB shared L3 cache, produce a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23991. The PassMark multi-thread score of 28545 further confirms its strength in parallel tasks such as rendering, compilation, and data processing. The 84th percentile ranking places it among the upper tier of all CPUs, with nearest rival deltas of -0.2 to 0.8 percent showing it competes directly with the Intel Core i7-13700HX, Intel Core i5-13450HX, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350.

The Core Ultra 5 336H also wins in single-thread performance potential. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz drives a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3387 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4013. The 3 nm process node and 25 watt TDP indicate strong power efficiency for a mobile platform. The Intel Xe3 Graphics provides a newer integrated graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 710 found in the Intel Processor 300.

The Intel Processor 300 wins in desktop-specific considerations. Its Intel Socket 1700 compatibility and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) make it suitable for desktop builds with expansion needs. The base clock of 3.90 GHz gives it a high baseline frequency for lightly threaded desktop tasks. The 46 watt TDP reflects a desktop-oriented power envelope. The 163 mm² die size and 10 nm process node place it in a more mature, established manufacturing generation. The launch MSRP of $82 appears in the database as its listed price point.

The data shows the Core Ultra 5 336H as the dominant processor for mobile computing with heavy multi-threaded demands. The Intel Processor 300 serves as a desktop processor for basic tasks, though the database records no benchmark scores for it, leaving its measured performance undefined. The specification differences in cores, cache, process node, memory support, and socket type make the two processors appropriate for entirely different platforms and workload profiles.