Intel Core Ultra 5 338H vs Intel Processor U300L Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits this comparison into two very different profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is a 12-core, 12-thread Panther Lake part built on a 3 nm node, and it carries an 84th percentile ranking across all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 33989 places it directly alongside much higher-tier silicon such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083, a 0.3% gap) and the Intel Core i7-12800HX (33875, a 0.3% gap in the other direction). This is a processor that lands in the upper mid-range of recorded performance, with multi-threaded workloads clearly being its home turf.

The Intel Processor U300L, by contrast, is a 5-core, 6-thread Raptor Lake part on a 10 nm node. It sits at the 50th percentile, exactly the median of all recorded CPUs. Its benchmark array is empty in the database, so there are no recorded scores for it, no average score, and no rival list. What the data does show is a fundamentally lighter configuration: fewer cores, fewer threads, a lower boost clock, and a smaller cache footprint. The U300L is not competing for the same workload space as the 338H. It is a lower-power, lower-output option, and the absence of benchmark data means the database records no wins for either part in direct head-to-head tests.

Where the 338H wins is everywhere the data records performance: Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and the Passmark suite. Where the U300L wins is in the specifications that favor efficiency and simplicity: a 15 W TDP versus 25 W, a Socket 1700 platform, PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The wins are not on the same axis. One part wins on raw measured output, the other wins on configuration flexibility and lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database records an average benchmark score of 33989 for the 338H. That is 0.3% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34083), 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12800HX (33875), and 0.4% above the Intel Xeon 6353P (33844). It also sits 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 4244P (34220).

Q: What is the single-core performance of the 338H?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 338H scores 2044. In Cinebench R20 single-core it scores 1441, and in Cinebench R15 single-core it scores 305. Passmark single-thread testing records a score of 4180.

Q: What is the multi-core performance of the 338H?

A: The 338H scores 16331 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 10213 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 2504 in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Passmark multithread testing records 28717.

Q: Does the Intel Processor U300L have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the U300L, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentile rank is 50, which places it at the median of all CPUs in the database.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The 338H supports LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The U300L supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: What are the cache configurations?

A: The 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The U300L has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two processors. The wins counter records zero for both parts. That absence is itself informative. The 338H has a full benchmark profile, while the U300L has none, so any numerical comparison must rely on the 338H's recorded scores and the U300L's specification sheet.

The largest recorded wins for the 338H come in the Passmark extended workloads. Data compression scores 276539, random string sorting scores 34082, and floating point math scores 84067. Integer math reaches 64934, and data encryption hits 21367. The find prime numbers test returns 304, and extended instructions score 23906. These are all substantial numbers, but without U300L scores in the same tests, the database cannot express a delta between the two parts.

In Cinebench, the 338H's multi-core results are consistently strong relative to its single-core results. The R23 multi-core score of 16331 is roughly eight times the single-core score of 2044. The R20 ratio is similar: 10213 versus 1441. The R15 ratio is 2504 versus 305. That kind of scaling indicates a processor that benefits heavily from its 12 threads, and the 84th percentile ranking confirms that the part is positioned well above the median CPU.

The U300L's only recorded metric is its 50th percentile ranking. That places it exactly at the midpoint of all CPUs in the database, which is a meaningful anchor. The 338H sits 34 percentile points higher. The gap between the two, while not expressed as a direct benchmark delta, is substantial.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The 338H uses 12 cores and 12 threads, while the U300L uses 5 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 1.90 GHz for the 338H and 1.20 GHz for the U300L. Boost clocks are 4.70 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 25 W for the 338H and 15 W for the U300L.

The memory support differs as well. The 338H supports LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The U300L supports DDR4 and DDR5, with no bandwidth figure recorded. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Neither part supports ECC memory.

PCIe configurations are different. The 338H uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the U300L uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: the 338H uses Arc B370, the U300L uses UHD Graphics 48EU.

The sockets are not compatible. The 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, the U300L uses Intel Socket 1700. Release dates are also different. The 338H is dated 2026-01-04, the U300L is dated 2024-04-07. Both are listed as Active in production, and both have locked multipliers.

The U300L has a recorded launch MSRP of $107. The 338H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The 338H is built on Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, using a 3 nm process node. The U300L is built on Raptor Lake, with a 10 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, and both target the mobile segment.

The cache hierarchy reflects the core count difference. The 338H allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The U300L allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 allocation on the 338H is exactly double that of the U300L, and the shared L3 is more than double.

The generation labels differ. The 338H is recorded as Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H), while the U300L is recorded as Intel Processor (Raptor Lake). The part numbers are SA4REQ9EW for the 338H and SRPEKSRPEM for the U300L.

The foundry is Intel for both, and neither part has recorded transistor counts or die sizes. The 338H's memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s is a notable architectural advantage, enabled by the LPDDR5X interface. The U300L's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 suggests a design aimed at broader platform compatibility rather than peak memory throughput.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear division of roles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the performance part. Its 84th percentile rank, 12 threads, 4.70 GHz boost clock, and 18 MB of L3 cache place it in direct company with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and the Intel Core i7-12800HX. The database shows it sitting within 0.7% of an AMD EPYC 4244P, which is a server-class EPYC part. That is a strong indicator of where this mobile processor lands in the overall performance distribution.

The Intel Processor U300L is the efficiency and compatibility part. Its 15 W TDP, Socket 1700 platform, DDR4 and DDR5 support, and PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes make it a flexible low-power option. Its 50th percentile rank puts it exactly at the median of all recorded CPUs, which is respectable for a 5-core part but not in the same performance class as the 338H.

The choice between the two depends entirely on workload. For multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating point math, the 338H has the recorded scores to justify its position. For low-power mobile use with broad memory and platform compatibility, the U300L is the more measured option. The data does not record a single head-to-head benchmark between them, so any direct comparison must rest on the 338H's complete benchmark profile and the U300L's specification sheet. The 338H is the part to pick when performance is the priority. The U300L is the part to pick when power draw and platform flexibility are the priority.