Ultra 5 228V vs Atom C3338

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3338
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 8 Watt
0.65
Core Ultra 5 228V
2024
8 cores / 8 threads, 17 Watt
12.55
+1831%

Core Ultra 5 228V outperforms Atom C3338 by a whopping 1831% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2751609
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesIntel Atomno data
Power efficiency6.8369.86
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Lunar Lake (2024)
Release date22 February 2017 (7 years ago)24 September 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$27no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads28
Base clock speed1.5 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz4.5 GHz
Bus rateno data37 MHz
Multiplier15no data
L1 cache112 KB192 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB2.5 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm3 nm
Maximum core temperature89 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1310Intel BGA 2833
Power consumption (TDP)8.5 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssist-no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+

Security technologies

Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB+no data
Secure Boot+no data
Secure Key+no data
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 1866DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels1no data
Maximum memory bandwidth14.936 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataArc 130V

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V.

PCIe version35.0
PCI Express lanes104
USB revision3no data
Total number of SATA ports10no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports10no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN4x2.5/1 GBEno data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Atom C3338 0.65
Ultra 5 228V 12.55
+1831%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Atom C3338 1028
Ultra 5 228V 19930
+1839%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.65 12.55
Recency 22 February 2017 24 September 2024
Physical cores 2 8
Threads 2 8
Chip lithography 14 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 8 Watt 17 Watt

Atom C3338 has 112.5% lower power consumption.

Ultra 5 228V, on the other hand, has a 1830.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 5 228V is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3338 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom C3338 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 5 228V is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3338 and Core Ultra 5 228V, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Atom C3338
Atom C3338
Intel Core Ultra 5 228V
Core Ultra 5 228V

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Atom C3338 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Core Ultra 5 228V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom C3338 or Core Ultra 5 228V, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.