Intel Core Ultra 5 338H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive split between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V takes only 2. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

Starting with the multi-core Cinebench results, the Ultra 5 338H establishes a commanding lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 16331 against the Ultra 9's 10178, a 60.5% advantage. That is the largest multi-core gap in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 2504 versus 1583, a 58.2% difference. The R20 multi-core test records 10213 for the Ultra 5 against 7069, a 44.5% delta. These results indicate that the Ultra 5's additional cores translate directly into substantial rendering performance.

The single-core Cinebench results are far closer. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2044 versus 1950 for the Ultra 9, a modest 4.8% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 305 against 301.5, just a 1.2% difference. The R20 single-core test is the outlier: the Ultra 5 scores 1441 against 997, a 44.5% margin that appears inconsistent with the other single-core results. The data records this result as a clear win for the Ultra 5, but the magnitude suggests workload-specific behavior rather than a general single-core advantage.

PassMark tests reinforce the multi-core dominance. The Ultra 5 338H leads in physics by 64.8% (2697 versus 1637), the largest margin in any test. Data compression shows 276539 against 186521, a 48.3% gap. Encryption follows at 51.1% (21367 versus 14141). Extended instructions deliver 23906 versus 15613, a 53.1% difference. Integer math records 64934 against 44019, a 47.5% advantage. Floating-point math shows 84067 versus 59536, a 41.2% lead. Random string sorting yields 34082 versus 22622, a 50.7% margin. Prime number finding scores 304 against 195, a 55.9% gap. The multithread PassMark score is 28717 versus 19810, a 45% lead.

The two wins for the Ultra 9 288V come in PassMark single-thread tests. Both recorded instances (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread) show 4274 for the Ultra 9 against 4180 for the Ultra 5, a 2.2% advantage. That is the only test category where the Ultra 9 leads, and the margin is narrow. The data suggests the Ultra 9 has a slight edge in lightly threaded workloads that do not scale with core count.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split is clear from the recorded measurements. The Ultra 5 338H wins in every multi-threaded and compute-intensive category. Rendering workloads, represented by Cinebench multi-core tests, favor the Ultra 5 by margins ranging from 44.5% to 60.5%. Data processing tasks such as compression, encryption, and sorting also go decisively to the Ultra 5, with margins between 48.3% and 51.1%. Mathematical workloads, both integer and floating-point, show leads of 47.5% and 41.2% respectively. The physics test, often indicative of simulation and gaming physics calculations, shows the largest gap at 64.8%.

The Ultra 9 288V wins only in single-threaded PassMark performance. The 4274 score versus 4180 represents a 2.2% improvement. This suggests that for applications that use a single core and cannot leverage additional cores, the Ultra 9 offers a slight speed advantage. The Cinebench single-core results partially contradict this, as the Ultra 5 still leads in R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, though the R20 result is anomalously large. The PassMark single-thread test is the only measurement where the Ultra 9's higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz translates into a recorded win.

For users running parallel workloads, the Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice based on the data. For users whose primary applications are single-threaded and latency-sensitive, the Ultra 9 288V provides a small but measurable edge. The average benchmark score reflects this split: the Ultra 5 averages 33989 across all tests, while the Ultra 9 averages 23219. The Ultra 5 sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra 9 sits at the 76th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H as the stronger processor overall. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons and holds an average benchmark score that is 46.4% higher than the Ultra 9 288V. The nearest rivals to the Ultra 5 include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (average score 34083, a 0.3% difference) and the Intel Core i7-12800HX (33875, a 0.3% difference). The Ultra 5's performance class sits alongside those established mobile chips, while the Ultra 9 288V competes with the Intel Core i9-11900F (23254, 0.2% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H (23277, 0.2% difference).

The Ultra 5 338H delivers its performance with a 25 TDP against the Ultra 9's 30 TDP. That makes the Ultra 5's lead more notable, as it achieves higher scores while consuming less power according to the recorded specifications. The Ultra 9 288V, despite its higher boost clock and higher TDP, cannot match the Ultra 5's multi-core throughput.

The verdict depends on the intended use. For rendering, data processing, mathematical computation, and any parallel workload, the Ultra 5 338H is the processor the measurements favor. For pure single-threaded PassMark performance, the Ultra 9 288V takes a narrow win. The overall average and the breadth of the Ultra 5's wins make it the more versatile choice. The Ultra 9's single-thread advantage of 2.2% is unlikely to compensate for the 44.5% to 64.8% deficits in multi-core tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins 2.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark physics test, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 2697 against the Ultra 9's 1637, a 64.8% difference.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 288V win any test?

A: Yes, the Ultra 9 288V wins the PassMark single-thread test and the duplicate PassMark single-thread test, scoring 4274 against the Ultra 5's 4180, a 2.2% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, while the Ultra 9 288V averages 23219.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 338H sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 9 288V sits at the 76th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 288V has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the Ultra 5's 4.70 GHz. Despite this, the Ultra 5 wins the majority of single-core tests in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and architectures. The Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture, and is built on a 3 nm process by Intel. The Ultra 9 288V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Lunar Lake architecture, and is also built on a 3 nm process, but by TSMC. The foundry difference is a notable architectural distinction, though the recorded data does not directly compare manufacturing outcomes.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, as indicated by equal core and thread counts. The Ultra 5's additional 4 cores explain its multi-core dominance in the benchmark data.

Cache configurations show similarities and differences. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the Ultra 5 has 18 MB shared, while the Ultra 9 has 12 MB shared. The larger L3 cache on the Ultra 5 may contribute to its advantages in data compression and encryption tests, which often benefit from larger pooled caches.

Memory support is identical on paper. Both use LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is also the same: Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics differ. The Ultra 5 338H uses the Arc B370, while the Ultra 9 288V uses the Arc 140V. The recorded data does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from the measurements.

Sockets differ as well. The Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2833. This means the two processors are not socket-compatible and cannot be swapped in the same system.

The release dates are far apart. The Ultra 9 288V was released in September 2024, while the Ultra 5 338H was released in January 2026. The Ultra 5 is a newer design by over a year. Both processors are marked as Active production status in the database.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several direct differences between the two processors.

Core count: the Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores, the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores.

Thread count: the Ultra 5 has 12 threads, the Ultra 9 has 8 threads.

Base clock: the Ultra 5 runs at 1.90 GHz, the Ultra 9 runs at 3.30 GHz.

Boost clock: the Ultra 5 reaches 4.70 GHz, the Ultra 9 reaches 5.10 GHz.

TDP: the Ultra 5 is rated at 25, the Ultra 9 at 30.

L3 cache: the Ultra 5 has 18 MB shared, the Ultra 9 has 12 MB shared.

Integrated graphics: the Ultra 5 uses Arc B370, the Ultra 9 uses Arc 140V.

Socket: the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540, the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2833.

Architecture: the Ultra 5 uses Panther Lake, the Ultra 9 uses Lunar Lake.

Generation: the Ultra 5 is Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H), the Ultra 9 is Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake).

Series: the Ultra 5 is Core Ultra Series 3, the Ultra 9 is Core Ultra Series 2.

Foundry: the Ultra 5 is made by Intel, the Ultra 9 is made by TSMC.

Release date: the Ultra 5 released in January 2026, the Ultra 9 released in September 2024.

Part number: the Ultra 5 is SA4REQ9EW, the Ultra 9 is SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW.

Multiplier unlocked: both are locked, with multiplierUnlocked set to false.

Identical specifications include L1 cache per core (192 KB), L2 cache per core (2.5 MB), process node (3 nm), memory support (LPDDR5X), memory bus (dual-channel), memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s), ECC support (false), PCIe version (Gen 5, 4 lanes CPU only), market segment (Mobile), and production status (Active).