AMD Ryzen 3 110 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

AMD Ryzen 3 110 and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H are both mobile processors, but they occupy very different positions in the database. The Ryzen 3 110 is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on Zen 3+, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is a 16-core, 16-thread part on the Panther Lake architecture. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Intel part scoring in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile. The Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43,210, whereas the Ryzen 3 110 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning all quantitative comparisons must rely on the Intel part's measured results and architectural specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen 3 110 versus the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The Ryzen 3 110 has an empty benchmarks array, so there are no Cinebench or PassMark scores recorded for it. This makes a score-by-score comparison impossible. What the data does show is the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's measured performance across multiple workloads, which can be interpreted against its nearest rivals to establish where it stands.

In Cinebench R23, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20,547 in multi-core and 2,071.5 in single-core. The multi-core result is substantial, reflecting the 16-core configuration. In Cinebench R20, it scores 12,820 multi-core and 1,809 single-core. The R15 run shows 3,223 multi-core and 303.5 single-core. These results indicate a processor that scales well with thread-heavy workloads, as the multi-core scores are consistently much higher than the single-core figures.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra 9 386H reinforce this pattern. The multithread score is 35,399, while the single-thread score is 4,218. Integer math reaches 87,284, floating point math hits 108,527, and extended instructions score 29,138. Data compression scores 352,365, data encryption scores 27,150, and random string sorting scores 42,135. Physics testing yields 3,028, and prime number finding returns 341. These numbers show a processor with strong throughput in parallel workloads, particularly in floating point and data compression.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 386H is essentially even with the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which has an average score of 43,326, a delta of -0.3%. It is also nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, which averages 43,431, a -0.5% delta. Against the Intel Core i9-12900, the Core Ultra 9 386H is 0.7% ahead, and against the i9-12900KF it is 0.9% ahead. The recorded data shows that the Core Ultra 9 386H sits in a tight cluster with these four rivals, with all deltas under one percentage point. This means that while the Intel part is a strong performer, it does not decisively outpace its closest competitors in aggregate benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses Zen 3+ with the codename Rembrandt-R, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake, fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm is a newer and denser node than 6 nm, which contributes to the Intel part's higher transistor density and potentially better power efficiency per unit of work.

Core counts differ sharply. The Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part does not use hyperthreading, as its thread count equals its core count. The AMD part doubles its threads through simultaneous multithreading. This means the Intel processor has four times the physical cores, but the AMD processor has half the threads of the Intel part.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Ryzen 3 110 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core caches and more than double the L3 capacity. Die size is recorded for the AMD part at 210 mm², while the Intel part has no die size listed.

Memory support differs. The Ryzen 3 110 supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC is not supported on the Intel part. PCIe capability also differs: the Ryzen 3 110 uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses Radeon 660M, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The socket types are different: AMD Socket FP7 for the Ryzen, Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra. The AMD part is part of the Ryzen 3 generation under Rembrandt-R, while the Intel part belongs to the Ultra 9 series under Panther Lake-H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has recorded benchmark scores. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 2,071.5, and its PassMark single-thread score is 4,218. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark scores in the database, so no direct comparison is possible.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores but does not use hyperthreading, while the AMD part doubles its thread count.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The Intel node is more advanced.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 supports 76.8 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports 115.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X bandwidth, which is about 50% higher.

Q: Where does the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H rank among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 43,210. It is within 0.9% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, Intel Core i9-12900, and Intel Core i9-12900KF.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category recorded in the database. Core count is 4 for the AMD part versus 16 for the Intel part. Thread count is 8 versus 16. Base clock is 3.00 GHz for the AMD part versus 2.10 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clock is 4.30 GHz for the AMD part versus 4.90 GHz for the Intel part. TDP is 28 watts for the AMD part versus 25 watts for the Intel part.

Socket is AMD Socket FP7 for the Ryzen 3 110 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Architecture is Zen 3+ versus Panther Lake. Process node is 6 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry is TSMC versus Intel. Die size is 210 mm² for the AMD part, with no recorded value for the Intel part.

Cache sizes differ per core and in total. L1 is 64 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 512 KB per core for AMD versus 2.5 MB per core for Intel. L3 is 8 MB shared for AMD versus 18 MB shared for Intel. Memory support is DDR5 for AMD versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for AMD versus 115.2 GB/s for Intel. ECC support is true for AMD and false for Intel.

PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon 660M for AMD versus Intel Xe3 Graphics for Intel. Market segment is mobile for both. Production status is active for both. Release dates differ: the AMD part is dated September 30, 2025, and the Intel part is dated January 4, 2026. Part numbers are 100-000000549(FP7r2) for AMD and SA4R5Q9EH for Intel. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows that the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the far more capable processor in multi-threaded workloads. It has 16 cores, 18 MB of shared L3 cache, and a 3 nm process node. Its benchmark scores, such as 20,547 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 35,399 in PassMark multithread, place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark scores, but its specifications indicate a much lighter workload capacity: 4 cores, 8 MB of L3, and a 6 nm node. The Intel part also has higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz compared to 4.30 GHz, and higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

For users who need heavy parallel processing, the data points entirely to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. Its multi-core scores are strong, and its aggregate performance is on par with desktop-class rivals like the Intel Core i9-12900. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is a lower-power part at 28 watts TDP, which is slightly higher than the Intel part's 25 watts, but it offers far fewer cores and less cache. The AMD part does support ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, a feature that matters in specific reliability-sensitive scenarios. The AMD part also uses PCIe Gen 4, while the Intel part uses Gen 5, which supports higher transfer rates but with fewer lanes.

The Verdict is straightforward: for compute-heavy tasks, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the choice based on measured performance and architectural advantages. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is a more modest part, likely suited to lighter workloads, but without benchmark data, its relative performance cannot be quantified.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in all measured performance categories. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,547 and single-core score of 2,071.5 demonstrate strength in both threaded and single-threaded applications. PassMark results show dominance in integer math at 87,284, floating point math at 108,527, and data compression at 352,365. The multithread score of 35,399 indicates that heavily parallel workloads, such as rendering, compilation, or scientific simulation, will benefit significantly from the 16-core design.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no recorded benchmark wins in the database. Its specifications suggest potential advantages in specific areas. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, making it a candidate for systems where data integrity is critical. It uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, which is more lanes than the Intel part's 12 Gen 5 lanes, potentially allowing more direct device connections, though at a lower bandwidth per lane. The AMD part's 4.30 GHz boost clock is lower than the Intel part's 4.90 GHz, but its 3.00 GHz base clock is higher than the Intel part's 2.10 GHz, which could mean better sustained low-load performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H also wins on memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, and on L3 cache capacity at 18 MB versus 8 MB. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches further support its performance advantage. In every workload category where data exists, the Intel part is the winner. The AMD part's only qualitative edges are ECC support and higher PCIe lane count, neither of which is reflected in benchmark scores.