Intel Core Ultra 5 336H vs Intel Processor 300T Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 336H and Intel Processor 300T sit at opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The 336H is a mobile processor with 16 cores and a 4.60 GHz boost clock, while the 300T is a desktop part with 2 cores and a fixed 3.40 GHz clock. Their benchmark data, however, is incomplete on one side: the 336H has a full suite of recorded scores, while the 300T has no benchmark entries in the database. This forces a comparison based on architecture, specifications, and the limited data available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins in every measurable category because it is the only one with recorded benchmark scores. Its 16 cores and 16 threads give it an overwhelming advantage in multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23991 places it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms roughly 84 percent of the processors in the database. The Intel Processor 300T, with only 2 cores and 4 threads, cannot compete in any parallel workload, and its lack of benchmark data means it has no recorded wins.

The 300T does win in one specific area: power efficiency per core, though not in total power draw. Its 35 W TDP is higher than the 336H's 25 W TDP, but it uses fewer cores. For single-threaded tasks that do not scale beyond one or two threads, the 300T's higher base clock of 3.40 GHz compared to the 336H's 1.90 GHz base clock suggests it may handle lightly threaded tasks competently, though no direct comparison exists in the data.

The 336H also wins in memory bandwidth. It supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5 but has no bandwidth figure recorded. For data-heavy applications like compression and encryption, the 336H's PassMark data compression score of 280340 and data encryption score of 21291 show it handles these tasks far beyond what a 2-core part could manage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The 336H uses Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process node. The 300T uses Raptor Lake, built on a 10 nm process node. This process difference is significant: the 3 nm node allows the 336H to pack 16 cores into a 25 W TDP, while the 300T uses 10 nm for just 2 cores at 35 W. The 336H also has a larger cache hierarchy, with 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The 300T has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3.

The 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics as its integrated GPU, while the 300T uses UHD Graphics 710. Both are integrated solutions, but the Xe3 architecture is newer and tied to the Panther Lake platform. The 336H is designed for mobile use with an Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the 300T uses the desktop Intel Socket 1700. The 300T has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the 336H has no die size recorded.

Memory support differs as well. The 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5. The 336H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the 300T has none. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the 300T provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between these two processors. The 336H has 17 recorded benchmark scores, while the 300T has none. This absence means any direct comparison must rely on the 336H's absolute scores and the 300T's architectural limitations.

The 336H's Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23991 is its strongest result. For reference, its nearest rival in the database, the Intel Core i7-13700HX, has an average score of 34554, which is 0.2 percent higher than the 336H's average of 34485. The 336H also edges out the Intel Core i5-13450HX (34333, 0.4 percent lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (34260, 0.7 percent lower), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34222, 0.8 percent lower). These rival comparisons show the 336H is competitive with mid-range desktop and mobile parts from the previous generation.

In single-threaded performance, the 336H scores 3387 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4013 in PassMark single-thread. Its PassMark multithread score of 28545 and floating point math score of 82415 reinforce its multi-core strength. The 300T has no comparable scores, so no direct win or loss can be assigned. The 300T's 2-core design, however, would likely score far lower in multithreaded tests, given that 16 cores deliver 16 threads versus 4 threads.

The 336H also shows strong results in specialized PassMark tests. Integer math scores 62070, extended instructions score 24542, and random string sorting scores 34402. Physics scores 2682, and find prime numbers scores 299. These numbers are meaningless without a 300T score to compare against, but they establish a baseline for the 336H's capabilities.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clock differs: 1.90 GHz for the 336H versus 3.40 GHz for the 300T. The 336H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the 300T has no boost clock recorded. TDP is 25 W for the 336H and 35 W for the 300T.

Socket types are incompatible: Intel BGA 2540 for the 336H versus Intel Socket 1700 for the 300T. The architecture and process node differ as described above. Cache sizes are different: the 336H has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 18 MB L3 per core or shared as specified; the 300T has 80 KB L1, 1.25 MB L2, and 6 MB L3. Memory support differs: LPDDR5X is exclusive to the 336H, while DDR4 is exclusive to the 300T. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the 336H at 115.2 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts differ: 12 lanes for the 336H versus 16 lanes for the 300T, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics versus UHD Graphics 710. Market segment differs: mobile versus desktop. Release dates differ: the 336H was released on 2026-01-04, while the 300T was released on 2024-01-07. The 300T has a launch MSRP of $82, while the 336H has no recorded MSRP. The 300T has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the 336H does not. The 300T has a part number of SRN3K, while the 336H has SA4RD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 336H has a TDP of 25 W, while the 300T has a TDP of 35 W. The 336H consumes less power despite having more cores.

Q: Which processor supports LPDDR5X memory?

A: Only the 336H supports LPDDR5X. The 300T supports DDR4 and DDR5, but not LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the release date of each processor?

A: The 336H was released on 2026-01-04, and the 300T was released on 2024-01-07.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The 300T has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, which is higher than the 336H's 1.90 GHz. However, the 336H has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the 300T has no boost clock recorded.

Q: Are these processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The 336H uses Intel BGA 2540, and the 300T uses Intel Socket 1700. They are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for heavy workloads: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H is the superior processor. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth put it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i7-13700HX and AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, are within 0.8 percent of its average score, confirming it performs at a mid-range desktop level despite being a mobile part. The 336H is the clear choice for anyone running multithreaded applications, data compression, encryption, or any task that benefits from parallel execution.

The Intel Processor 300T, with its 2 cores and 4 threads, serves a different purpose. Its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz suggests adequate single-threaded performance for basic tasks, and its 35 W TDP is modest for a desktop part. The lack of benchmark data prevents a quantitative assessment, but the architectural gap is too wide to ignore. A 2-core processor cannot match a 16-core processor in any parallel workload, regardless of clock speed.

For a desktop user with simple needs, the 300T is a functional low-power option. For a mobile user needing real compute capability, the 336H is the only viable choice between these two. The 300T's $82 launch MSRP makes it cheap, but the 336H's performance data justifies its position in the higher percentile. The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the 336H wins on performance, the 300T wins on simplicity and a fixed clock speed. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, and the data shows the 336H handles both better.