Intel Core Ultra 5 338H vs Intel Xeon 6349P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two processors into clearly different personalities. The Intel Xeon 6349P takes 7 benchmark wins across the head-to-head suite, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes 10 wins. That raw count alone suggests the Ultra 5 is the broader performer, but the nature of those wins matters more than the total.

The Xeon 6349P dominates in sustained single-thread workloads and integer-heavy tasks. It wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a 2% margin over the Ultra 5 in R15 single-core, then extends that to a 51.4% lead in R23 single-core. The Passmark single-thread result repeats the pattern at 8.3% ahead. Integer math is another Xeon stronghold at 27% ahead. Data compression belongs to the Xeon as well, with a 10.9% edge. These are the workloads that reward high clock speeds, deep cache per core, and the kind of burst performance that scales with frequency.

The Core Ultra 5 338H counters in nearly every other category it touches. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core at 11.8% ahead, R20 multi-core at 9.8% ahead, and R20 single-core at 9.9% ahead. The Passmark suite heavily favors the Ultra 5 in floating-point math at 26.5% ahead, extended instructions at 14.6% ahead, and data encryption at 24% ahead. The most dramatic gap comes from find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 304 versus the Xeon's 90, a staggering 70.4% difference in its favor. Physics testing shows a 47.8% Ultra 5 lead, while passmark_multithread lands at 10.2% ahead of the Xeon.

The split is not subtle. The Xeon 6349P appears tuned for frequency-sensitive, single-threaded, or integer-bound code. The Ultra 5 338H wins when the workload uses vector instructions, floating-point throughput, or parallel thread count without the need for sustained per-core frequency.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from entirely different Intel design lineages. The Xeon 6349P uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, built on the Raptor Lake-R die with a 163 mm² area. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process, part of Panther Lake-H generation labeled Ultra 5 series. That process difference is significant on paper, with the Ultra 5 on the newer node potentially enabling its lower power draw and higher efficiency per transistor count.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Xeon 6349P has 6 physical cores with 12 threads, while the Ultra 5 has 12 physical cores with 12 threads. That means the Xeon relies on hyperthreading to reach 12 threads, while the Ultra 5 gets there with twice the physical cores and no hyperthreading. The per-core caches reflect this: the Xeon carries 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3 cache, making their last-level cache identical in total size.

Clock behavior differs as much as core layout. The Xeon 6349P has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Ultra 5 has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. That gap explains why the Xeon's dominant single-core wins in Cinebench R23 single-core and Passmark single-thread tests.

Power and thermal design limits set them apart further. The Xeon 6349P has a TDP of 95 watts, appropriate for a server and workstation socketed part. The Ultra 5 sips power relative to what it delivers, with a 25 watt TDP suited to mobile integration. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 mounts into Intel BGA 2000-series sockets, reflecting desktop versus mobile design targets.

Memory channels differ in type and bandwidth numbers. The Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory but no listed bandwidth figure, while the Ultra 5 supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel and a measured 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon includes ECC memory support, the Ultra 5 does not. PCIe lanes also differ: 16 lanes on the Xeon versus 4 lanes on the Ultra 5, both Gen 5. The Ultra 5 integrates Arc B370 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon targets server and workstation markets, the Ultra 5 targets mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the Xeon its largest multi-threaded victory in the Cinebench suite, scoring 21924 versus the Ultra 5's 16331, a 34.2% lead. That result is surprising given the Ultra 5 has twice the physical cores, but the Xeon's higher clock speeds and hyperthreading appear to carry it through sustained rendering. The single-core R23 result is even more lopsided: 3095 versus 2044, a 51.4% advantage for the Xeon. Those two numbers anchor the case for the Xeon as the better compute engine in specific workloads.

The Ultra 5 answers back in the older Cinebench releases. In R15 multi-core, it scores 2504 versus 2209 for the Xeon, an 11.8% win. In R20 multi-core, it scores 10213 versus 9208, a 9.8% win. In R20 single-core, the Ultra 5 takes 1441 versus 1299, a 9.9% win. The only Cinebench single-core test the Xeon wins is R15 at 311 versus 305, a slim 2% margin.

Passmark tells a similar story with a different emphasis. The Xeon leads integer math at 82443 versus 64934, a 27% advantage. It also leads data compression at 306774 versus 276539, a 10.9% edge. Those are the Xeon's Passmark wins. The Ultra 5 takes everything else: floating-point math at 84067 versus 61796, a 26.5% lead; extended instructions at 23906 versus 20426, a 14.6% lead; data encryption at 21367 versus 16239, a 24% lead; find prime numbers at 304 versus 90, a 70.4% lead; physics at 2697 versus 1408, a 47.8% lead; random string sorting at 34082 versus 31056, an 8.9% lead; and multithread at 28717 versus 25793, a 10.2% lead. Single-thread Passmark goes to the Xeon at 4528 versus 4180, an 8.3% margin.

The data shows the Xeon 6349P wins exactly the tests that reward raw clock speed and integer throughput. The Ultra 5 338H wins the tests that reward parallel processing, floating-point throughput, and instruction-level parallelism. Neither dominates the other across the board.

The Verdict

The benchmark results point to two distinct buyers. The Intel Xeon 6349P is the correct choice for anyone running server workloads that are sensitive to single-thread performance, integer math, or data compression. The 51.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and the 27% lead in Passmark integer math make it the stronger option for databases, legacy software, or rendering engines that do not scale across many threads. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC memory support, and socketed form factor reinforce its server and workstation positioning. Its launch MSRP is $509.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the better pick for mobile platforms or workloads that lean on floating-point operations, cryptography, or general parallel throughput. The 70.4% lead in find prime numbers and the 47.8% lead in physics testing show a processor that excels at math-heavy, vectorized code. The 12 physical cores without hyperthreading give it a different thread scheduling profile, and the 25 watt TDP makes it suitable for compact systems. The integrated Arc B370 graphics add capability the Xeon simply does not have.

Users should not expect one chip to replace the other. The Xeon 6349P wins 7 of 17 head-to-head tests, and it wins the tests that matter most for traditional server workloads. The Ultra 5 338H wins 10 tests, and it wins the tests that matter most for modern mobile and efficiency-focused computing. If the workload is known, the data makes the choice obvious.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6349P has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 338H support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC memory. The Xeon 6349P does support ECC memory and supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports only LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon 6349P wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 21924 versus 16331 for the Core Ultra 5 338H, a 34.2% advantage.

Q: How many physical cores does each processor have?

A: The Xeon 6349P has 6 physical cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 physical cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 5 338H?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H has a dual-channel LPDDR5X memory bus with a measured bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Xeon 6349P has dual-channel support for DDR4 and DDR5 but no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H includes integrated Arc B370 graphics. The Xeon 6349P has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6349P | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 18 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Gen 5 Lanes | 16 | 4 |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B370 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $509 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRPLT | SA4REQ9EW |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not listed |