Intel Core Ultra 5 338H vs Intel Xeon 6353P Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H and the Intel Xeon 6353P are two very different processors aimed at opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land remarkably close. The Ultra 5 338H, a mobile part built for efficiency, and the Xeon 6353P, a server/workstation chip, both sit at the 84th percentile among all CPUs. Their overall average scores are nearly identical—33989 for the Ultra 5 338H and 33844 for the Xeon 6353P—a difference of just 0.4%. However, the way they achieve these scores could not be more different, with each chip dominating distinct workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic win for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H comes in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where it scores 304 versus the Xeon’s 127. That is a 139.4% advantage, a massive gap that highlights the Ultra 5’s superior per-core integer throughput. The Ultra 5 also excels in passmark_physics, scoring 2697 against 1845, a 46.2% lead. Data encryption is another strong suit, with the Ultra 5 scoring 21367 versus 15228, a 40.3% margin. In floating-point math, the Ultra 5 scores 84067, which is 32.4% higher than the Xeon’s 63509. The extended instructions test shows a 30.6% advantage for the Ultra 5 (23906 vs 18311).

The Xeon 6353P, however, fights back decisively in other areas. Its most significant win is in cinebench_r23_multicore, where it scores 22058 against the Ultra 5’s 16331—a 26% lead. The Xeon also dominates passmark_integer_math, scoring 86836 versus 64934, a 25.2% advantage. In single-core Cinebench R23, the Xeon is 34.4% ahead, posting 3114 versus 2044. The data compression test goes to the Xeon with a smaller 3.2% margin (285581 vs 276539). In the two single-thread tests, the Xeon wins by narrow 1.1% margins, scoring 4226 versus 4180.

The remaining head-to-head matchups favor the Ultra 5. It wins cinebench_r15_multicore by 12.6% (2504 vs 2223), cinebench_r20_multicore by 10.2% (10213 vs 9264), and cinebench_r20_singlecore by 10.3% (1441 vs 1307). The passmark_multithread test goes to the Ultra 5 with a 10.7% lead (28717 vs 25951), and random string sorting is 9.1% better (34082 vs 31226). Notably, the Xeon wins cinebench_r15_singlecore by just 2.6% (313 vs 305). Overall, the Ultra 5 338H takes 10 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon wins 7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 33989, compared to the Intel Xeon 6353P’s 33844. This represents a 0.4% difference in favor of the Ultra 5.

Q: Is the Xeon 6353P better at multi-threaded workloads?

A: It depends on the test. The Xeon wins cinebench_r23_multicore by 26% (22058 vs 16331), but the Ultra 5 338H wins cinebench_r15_multicore by 12.6% (2504 vs 2223) and cinebench_r20_multicore by 10.2% (10213 vs 9264). In passmark_multithread, the Ultra 5 is ahead by 10.7% (28717 vs 25951).

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon 6353P generally leads in single-core tests. It wins cinebench_r23_singlecore by 34.4% (3114 vs 2044) and passmark_single_thread by 1.1% (4226 vs 4180). The Ultra 5 338H wins cinebench_r20_singlecore by 10.3% (1441 vs 1307), while the Xeon takes cinebench_r15_singlecore by 2.6% (313 vs 305).

Q: Which CPU has better security-related performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is significantly better at data encryption, scoring 21367 in the passmark_data_encryption test, which is 40.3% higher than the Xeon’s 15228.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is built on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Xeon 6353P uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon 6353P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is stark. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is based on the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, and is manufactured on Intel’s 3 nm process node. It is a 12-core, 12-thread processor designed for mobile platforms. In contrast, the Intel Xeon 6353P is a Raptor Lake part, specifically from the Raptor Lake-R refresh generation, built on the older 10 nm process node. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, targeting the server and workstation market segment.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 6353P has smaller per-core caches: 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, but a larger 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s die size is listed at 257 mm², while the Ultra 5’s die size is not provided.

The integrated graphics situation is another major architectural difference. The Ultra 5 338H includes an Arc B370 integrated GPU, while the Xeon 6353P has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Xeon compensates with ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 lacks. The Ultra 5 supports LPDDR5X memory exclusively, while the Xeon supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Xeon’s PCIe configuration offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6353P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is higher at 2.70 GHz compared to the Ultra 5’s 1.90 GHz, and its boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz versus the Ultra 5’s 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is a major differentiator: the Ultra 5 is rated at 25 watts, while the Xeon is rated at 65 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket, while the Xeon 6353P uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop/server platform. The Ultra 5 has a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the Xeon’s memory bandwidth is not listed. The Xeon supports ECC memory (true), while the Ultra 5 does not (false). The Xeon’s launch MSRP is $426, while the Ultra 5 has no listed launch MSRP. Both processors are locked (multiplierUnlocked: false), and both are currently active in production. Their release dates differ, with the Xeon released earlier than the Ultra 5.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two specialized tools. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the better all-around performer in the majority of tests, winning 10 out of 17 head-to-head matchups. Its dominance in encryption, physics, floating-point math, and prime number finding makes it a compelling choice for mobile users who need strong computational throughput without the power draw. The Xeon 6353P, with its 7 wins, is not a generalist—it is a specialist. Its massive 26% lead in cinebench_r23_multicore and 25.2% lead in integer math indicate a processor tuned for sustained, heavy multi-threaded workloads that benefit from its 16 threads and larger 24 MB L3 cache.

For a builder prioritizing a laptop or mobile workstation, the Ultra 5 338H is the obvious pick. Its 25-watt TDP and integrated Arc B370 graphics make it a self-contained solution. For a server or workstation where ECC memory and raw integer crunching are paramount, the Xeon 6353P with its 65-watt TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility is the data-driven choice. The Xeon’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 provide flexibility that the Ultra 5 cannot match. The choice comes down to platform and workload priority, not overall superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in scenarios that benefit from high per-core efficiency and advanced instruction handling. Its 139.4% lead in prime number finding suggests exceptional integer logic performance. The 46.2% advantage in physics tests points to strong floating-point and simulation capabilities. For security-focused tasks, the 40.3% encryption lead is significant. It also wins the multithread test (10.7% ahead), random string sorting (9.1% ahead), and both Cinebench R20 tests (10.3% and 10.2% ahead). This makes the Ultra 5 suitable for mobile content creation, cryptography, and scientific computing on the go.

The Intel Xeon 6353P wins in sustained multi-core rendering and integer-heavy enterprise workloads. The 26% lead in cinebench_r23_multicore is its most impressive result, indicating strong performance in long-duration rendering tasks. The 25.2% lead in integer math aligns with database and transactional workloads. Its 3.2% lead in data compression makes it slightly better for file archiving and storage tasks. The Xeon also wins both single-thread tests (34.4% and 1.1% leads in Cinebench R23 and PassMark, respectively), giving it an edge in lightly-threaded legacy applications. For a server environment requiring ECC memory and reliable multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon 6353P is the clear choice.