Intel Core Ultra 5 338H vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H and the Intel Processor N250, though direct head-to-head test results are not recorded. The Core Ultra 5 338H carries a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark scores, while the Processor N250 has no benchmark entries in the database. This absence of recorded data for the N250 means every measurable comparison is one-sided.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Core Ultra 5 338H records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16331, a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 10213, and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2504. These are substantial numbers for a mobile processor, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Processor N250, by contrast, has no recorded scores in any of these tests, so the database cannot produce a delta percentage for a direct comparison. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 338H is 33989, while the N250 sits at 0 in the same metric, which reflects the complete lack of test data for the lower-tier chip rather than a literal zero performance.

Single-thread performance follows the same pattern. The Core Ultra 5 338H posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044, a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 1441, and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 305. PassMark single-thread tests record 4180 for the same processor. The N250 again has no entries. The Core Ultra 5 338H also delivers strong results in specialized PassMark workloads: floating point math at 84067, integer math at 64934, extended instructions at 23906, data encryption at 21367, data compression at 276539, random string sorting at 34082, physics at 2697, and prime number finding at 304. Its PassMark multithread score is 28717.

Rival comparisons in the database help contextualize the Core Ultra 5 338H. It sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-12800HX, which posts an average score of 33875, and within 0.4% of the Intel Xeon 6353P at 33844. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H by 0.3%, that chip averaging 34083, and the AMD EPYC 4244P by 0.7%, that chip averaging 34220. These are narrow margins, indicating the Core Ultra 5 338H is positioned in a competitive performance band for its class. The Processor N250 has no nearest rivals recorded, so no such analysis is possible for it.

The data confirms that any workload requiring sustained multi-core throughput, heavy integer or floating point math, or high-volume data compression will favor the Core Ultra 5 338H by a wide margin, though the exact percentage cannot be stated because the N250 lacks scores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design lineages. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Processor N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belonging to the Alder Lake-N generation family, built on a 10 nm process node, also at Intel. The manufacturing process difference alone, 3 nm versus 10 nm, explains a significant portion of the performance and efficiency gap.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts match core counts for both. The Core Ultra 5 338H runs a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Processor N250 runs a base clock of 0.10 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz. The boost clock difference of nearly a gigahertz, combined with triple the core count, puts the Core Ultra 5 338H in a different performance tier entirely.

Cache layouts reflect the architectural gulf. The Core Ultra 5 338H allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor N250 allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H thus has triple the L3 capacity and a per-core L2 allocation that scales with its larger core count.

Memory support differs in both type and width. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s. The bandwidth advantage for the Core Ultra 5 338H is more than threefold, which matters for memory-intensive workloads. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The Core Ultra 5 338H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Processor N250 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes from the CPU. The newer PCIe generation on the Core Ultra 5 338H offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the N250 offers more total lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370 graphics, while the Processor N250 uses UHD Graphics 730. Both are mobile parts, both are currently active in production, and both have locked multipliers.

Thermal design power shows the efficiency story. The Core Ultra 5 338H carries a TDP of 25 watts, while the Processor N250 carries a TDP of 6 watts. The N250 is clearly engineered for very low power envelopes, whereas the Core Ultra 5 338H spends more power budget for substantially higher performance.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the far more capable processor in every measurable dimension. It has three times the cores, a higher boost clock, more cache, wider memory support, newer PCIe generation, and a full suite of benchmark scores that place it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores at all, which makes any quantitative performance comparison impossible, but the architectural specifications alone indicate it is designed for a much lighter workload profile.

The Core Ultra 5 338H is the choice for anyone who needs multi-core compute, high memory bandwidth, or modern connectivity. Its nearest rivals in the database, the Core Ultra 7 165H, Core i7-12800HX, Xeon 6353P, and EPYC 4244P, all sit within a 1.1% band of its average score, confirming that it competes at a serious performance level. The Processor N250, with its 4 cores, 6 watt TDP, and single-channel memory, is suited to basic tasks where power draw is the primary concern and raw performance is secondary.

From the data, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the definitive pick for demanding mobile workloads. The Processor N250 is the pick for extremely low-power systems where the 6 watt TDP and modest specifications are acceptable trade-offs. There is no benchmark evidence to suggest the N250 can approach the Core Ultra 5 338H in any compute-heavy task.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Processor N250 boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Processor N250 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X. The Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H delivers 136.5 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The Processor N250 delivers 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Processor N250 has a TDP of 6 watts.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 338H have a recorded benchmark advantage?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has a full set of recorded Cinebench and PassMark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16331 and a PassMark multithread score of 28717. The Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every category where performance data exists. Multi-core rendering workloads, represented by Cinebench R23 multi-core at 16331 and Cinebench R20 multi-core at 10213, are clearly its territory. Single-thread responsiveness, shown by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4180, also favors it. Math-heavy tasks, including floating point at 84067 and integer math at 64934 on PassMark, are strong suits. Data compression at 276539, data encryption at 21367, and random string sorting at 34082 round out a comprehensive performance profile. Its 84th percentile ranking across all CPUs in the database confirms broad competitiveness.

The Intel Processor N250 wins in power efficiency. Its 6 watt TDP is a fraction of the Core Ultra 5 338H's 25 watt TDP, making it the better option for fanless or passively cooled designs and battery-first mobile devices. Its support for DDR4 alongside DDR5 and LPDDR5 gives system designers more memory flexibility at the low end. Its PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes offers more total lanes than the Core Ultra 5 338H's 4 lanes of PCIe Gen 5, which could matter for connecting multiple low-bandwidth peripherals. Its 10 nm process node, while older, is a mature and well-understood manufacturing technology.

For users who prioritize raw compute, memory bandwidth, and modern I/O, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the only defensible choice from the data. For users who prioritize minimum power draw and are willing to accept 4 cores, single-channel memory, and no recorded benchmark presence, the Processor N250 serves that niche. The two chips are not competing for the same workload; the data shows them at opposite ends of the mobile processor spectrum.

Specification Differences

The specification table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H | Intel Processor N250 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Panther Lake | Twin Lake |

| Codename | Panther Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Cores | 12 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2540 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 136.5 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc B370 | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release Date | 2026-01-04 | 2025-01-06 |

| Part Number | SA4REQ9EW | SRPNS |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 84 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 33989 | 0 |

Both processors share several traits: neither supports ECC memory, neither has an unlocked multiplier, both are mobile parts, both are currently in active production, and both are manufactured by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 338H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 family, while the Processor N250 has no series designation recorded. The release dates are close, with the Processor N250 arriving about a year earlier, but the architectural and specification gaps are far more significant than the launch timing.