AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H across all 11 shared PassMark subtests. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 fails to win a single comparison, with the Intel part delivering a minimum advantage of 41.6% and a maximum of 94.1%. This is not a close contest by any measure.

The largest margin appears in `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 against the AMD Ryzen 3 30's 20, a delta of 94.1%. Prime number finding is a heavily integer-bound workload that scales with core count and instruction efficiency, so a processor with 16 cores and 16 threads should dominate a 4-core, 8-thread part. The recorded data confirms that expectation decisively.

Floating-point math shows a similar story. The Intel chip delivers 108527 in `passmark_floating_point_math` versus 14448 for the AMD chip, a 86.7% deficit for the Ryzen 3 30. The physics subtest, which stresses floating-point throughput and thread scaling, records 3028 for Intel and 436 for AMD, a 85.6% gap. These two results indicate that the Ryzen 3 30's Zen 2 cores are not competitive with the Panther Lake architecture in sustained math workloads.

Encryption and compression workloads also heavily favor Intel. In `passmark_data_encryption`, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 27150 versus 6461, a 76.2% lead. Data compression shows 352365 versus 135834, a 61.5% lead. Extended instructions, a test that exercises SIMD and newer instruction sets, gives Intel 29138 against AMD's 6075, a 79.2% margin. The Ryzen 3 30's Zen 2 architecture, built on the older 6 nm node, lacks the modern vector and crypto extensions that the Panther Lake chip can exploit.

Integer math, multithread, and random string sorting all show identical 65.8% deltas in favor of Intel. The Intel part scores 87284 in integer math versus 29846, 35399 in multithread versus 9027, and 42135 in random string sorting versus 14431. The consistency of these margins suggests a uniform advantage in per-thread throughput combined with a large core-count advantage.

Single-thread performance is the closest category, but still firmly Intel's. The Core Ultra 9 386H records 4218 in `passmark_single_thread` against 2465 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 41.6% lead. This gap reflects the difference in boost clocks: the Intel chip boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the AMD part reaches 4.10 GHz. It also reflects the architectural generation gap between Zen 2 and Panther Lake.

Looking at overall averages, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H posts an average benchmark score of 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 averages 20137, placing it in the 74th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% higher) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.5% higher), while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U at 20249 (0.6% higher) and the Intel Core i7-9700K at 20271 (0.7% higher). This positioning shows that the Ryzen 3 30, despite its low absolute scores, is competitive with mid-range desktop processors from previous generations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all 11 head-to-head PassMark subtests. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 records zero wins across the shared test suite.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Intel chip scores 4218 in `passmark_single_thread` against 2465 for the AMD chip, a 41.6% lead. This is the smallest margin of any shared subtest.

Q: What is the multithread score difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 35399 in `passmark_multithread`, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 9027, a 74.5% deficit for the AMD part.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H sits in the 88th percentile with an average benchmark score of 43210. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 sits in the 74th percentile with an average score of 20137.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 30 win anywhere?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows zero wins for the AMD Ryzen 3 30 across all 11 shared tests, with deltas ranging from 41.6% to 94.1% in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How do the two chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is bracketed by the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% higher) and the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 (0.7% lower). The AMD Ryzen 3 30 is bracketed by the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U at 20249 (0.6% higher) and the Intel Core i7-11800H at 19998 (0.7% lower).

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the superior processor in every measured workload. Its average benchmark score of 43210 is more than double the AMD Ryzen 3 30's 20137, and its 88th percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 74th percentile confirms the separation in overall performance class.

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 is a 4-core, 8-thread mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, designed for efficiency rather than throughput. Its scores align with mid-range processors from earlier generations, such as the Intel Core i7-9700K at 20271 and the Intel Core i7-11800H at 19998. For workloads that demand minimal power and modest performance, the Ryzen 3 30 may be adequate, but the benchmark record shows it cannot compete with the Core Ultra 9 386H in any category.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, with 16 cores, 16 threads, a 25 W TDP, and a 4.90 GHz boost clock, delivers results that place it alongside modern high-end desktop processors like the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906. Its nearest rivals are AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and Ryzen AI 9 465, which score within 0.5% of the Intel chip. This places the Core Ultra 9 386H firmly in the upper tier of mobile processors.

For buyers choosing between these two specific parts, the decision is straightforward from a performance standpoint: the Intel chip wins every benchmark. The AMD part offers a lower TDP and a smaller physical footprint, but the recorded data provides no performance-based reason to prefer it.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close: 2.40 GHz for AMD versus 2.10 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks differ more significantly: 4.10 GHz for AMD versus 4.90 GHz for Intel.

Thermal design power also differs: the AMD part is rated at 15 W, the Intel part at 25 W. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses the AMD Socket FT6, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. Cache configurations diverge sharply. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s. PCIe capabilities differ: the AMD chip provides Gen 3 with 4 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The integrated graphics differ: the AMD Ryzen 3 30 pairs with Radeon 610M, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SA4R5Q9EH; the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown. The AMD chip has a die size of 100 mm², while the Intel chip's die size is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 is built on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Mendocino, and belongs to the Ryzen 3 generation. It uses a 6 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture, codenamed Panther Lake, and belongs to the Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. It uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel.

The process node difference, 6 nm versus 3 nm, explains part of the performance and efficiency gap. Intel's newer node allows for higher transistor density and lower power per operation, which contributes to the 41.6% single-thread advantage despite a relatively modest boost clock difference.

Core topology also differs fundamentally. The AMD part uses 4 cores with 8 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part uses 16 cores with 16 threads, meaning no hyperthreading is present in the recorded configuration. Despite having equal core and thread counts, the Intel chip's raw core count of 16 versus 4 gives it a 4x advantage in parallel execution resources, which directly drives the multithread score of 35399 versus 9027.

Cache hierarchy reflects the architectural generation gap. The Intel chip's 18 MB of shared L3 is 4.5 times larger than the AMD chip's 4 MB. Per-core L1 and L2 are also larger on the Intel side: 192 KB versus 64 KB for L1, and 2.5 MB versus 512 KB for L2. These larger caches reduce memory latency and improve hit rates in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

The memory controller differs as well. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a peak bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD part supports only LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s. The 27.2 GB/s bandwidth advantage for Intel helps in memory-intensive tests such as floating-point math and encryption.

PCIe connectivity shows a generational leap: Gen 5 with 12 lanes for Intel versus Gen 3 with 4 lanes for AMD. This affects external device bandwidth for GPUs, NVMe storage, and other peripherals, though the benchmark data focuses on CPU compute rather than I/O throughput.

The integrated graphics also reflect different generations. AMD uses Radeon 610M, a Zen 2 era iGPU, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics, a newer architecture designed for Panther Lake. The benchmark suite does not include iGPU tests, so the recorded data cannot quantify this difference, but the architectural gap is clear from the naming and generation.

Production status for both parts is listed as Active. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has a release date of 2025-09-30, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a release date of 2026-01-04. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.