AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two mobile processors shows a completely one-sided competitive picture. Across every shared benchmark in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records a higher score than the AMD Ryzen 5 40. The Intel part wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons, with the largest margins appearing in heavily threaded workloads and specialized compute tasks.

The biggest single gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 scores 20. That translates to a 94.1% deficit for the AMD chip, meaning the Intel processor completes this workload roughly 17 times faster. This test heavily favors the Intel part's much larger core count and newer architecture.

Floating point math shows a similar pattern. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records 108527 in PassMark floating point math, versus 15194 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40. The delta is 86% in favor of Intel. This is a workload that scales with both core count and SIMD width, and the Intel chip holds decisive advantages in both areas.

The Cinebench R23 multicore test delivers one of the largest absolute gaps. Intel scores 20547, AMD scores 4841, a 76.4% difference. This is the classic all-core rendering workload, and the 16-core Intel part simply overwhelms the 4-core AMD processor. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar 75.5% gap, with Intel at 3223 and AMD at 790.

Single-core performance is closer but still clearly favors Intel. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records 2071.5 versus 1150 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40, a 44.5% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows Intel at 303.5 versus 165.5, a 45.5% lead. The PassMark single-thread test confirms this pattern: Intel scores 4218, AMD scores 2477, a 41.3% gap. The Intel chip's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz compared to 4.30 GHz for AMD, combined with a newer 3 nm process, explains this consistent single-thread advantage.

Data compression and encryption workloads also fall heavily toward Intel. In PassMark data compression, Intel scores 352365 versus 141533 for AMD, a 59.8% gap. Data encryption shows Intel at 27150 versus 6646, a 75.5% difference. These tasks benefit from the Intel chip's 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB L2 per core, versus 4 MB L3 and 512 KB L2 per core for the AMD part.

Integer math shows a 63.8% gap, with Intel at 87284 and AMD at 31598. Extended instructions (SIMD-heavy workloads) show a 77.9% gap, Intel at 29138 versus AMD at 6437. Random string sorting, another memory-latency-sensitive test, shows Intel at 42135 versus 15124, a 64.1% difference.

The PassMark multithread score summarizes the overall threaded performance picture. Intel records 35399, AMD records 9341, a 73.6% gap. The PassMark physics test shows Intel at 3028 versus 432 for AMD, an 85.7% difference. Across every metric, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H delivers substantially higher raw performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not win a single head-to-head comparison. The database shows 0 wins for the AMD processor and 15 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. This does not mean the AMD chip lacks any useful characteristics, but from a pure performance standpoint, there is no workload category where it records a higher score.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every category that the database tracks. These include single-threaded tasks (Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, PassMark single-thread), multi-threaded tasks (Cinebench R15 and R23 multicore, PassMark multithread), and specialized workloads such as encryption, compression, integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics simulation, and string sorting.

The closest margin for the AMD chip appears in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to roughly 41-45%. Even there, the Intel part maintains a solid lead. The widest margins appear in prime number finding (94.1% gap) and floating point math (86% gap), where the Intel chip's core count and architecture deliver outsized advantages.

For users running lightly threaded applications, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H still outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 40, but the relative difference is smaller. For users running heavily threaded workloads, rendering, scientific computing, or any task that scales with core count, the Intel processor's advantage grows dramatically.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does have a lower thermal design power at 15 W versus 25 W for Intel. That suggests the AMD chip may fit into more power-constrained designs, though the database does not include any power efficiency benchmarks to quantify this. The AMD part also uses a smaller 100 mm² die on a 6 nm process, while the Intel chip uses a 3 nm process. Die size for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 40 in every single recorded test. Anyone selecting between these two processors strictly on measured performance should choose the Intel part. The margin is not close: the Intel chip delivers roughly 3 to 5 times the multi-threaded performance of the AMD chip, depending on the workload.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 sits at the 70th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15882. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 43210. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (average score 43326, 0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (average score 43431, 0.5% higher), and the Intel Core i9-12900 (average score 42906, 0.7% lower). The AMD Ryzen 5 40's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 75F3 (average score 15859, 0.1% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (average score 15910, 0.2% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9354P (average score 15826, 0.4% higher).

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H belongs in a different performance class entirely. Its average benchmark score is roughly 2.7 times higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 40's. This is not a marginal upgrade or a generational step; it is a fundamental performance tier difference.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H offers 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel chip also boosts to 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz for AMD, and it carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results directly.

For workloads where the AMD chip might still be considered, the data points to power-constrained environments where a 15 W TDP matters more than raw throughput. But the database contains no power efficiency benchmarks, so any such recommendation would go beyond the recorded facts. Based purely on the measured performance data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 has an average benchmark score of 15882. The Intel part sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 70th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 versus 4841 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40, a 76.4% gap. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 3223 versus 790, a 75.5% gap. In PassMark multithread, Intel scores 35399 versus 9341, a 73.6% gap.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 40 win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records 0 wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 40 and 15 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H across all shared head-to-head tests.

Q: How does single-core performance compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H leads in every single-threaded test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 2071.5 versus 1150, a 44.5% gap. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4218 versus 2477, a 41.3% gap.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC and has a die size of 100 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The die size for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

Core organization differs substantially. The AMD chip has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading. Despite having the same thread count as core count, the Intel chip's 16 physical cores provide far more parallel execution capacity than the AMD chip's 4 cores with 8 threads.

Cache hierarchy differs across every level. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Intel 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's L2 cache per core is nearly five times larger, and its shared L3 is 4.5 times larger.

Memory support also differs. The AMD chip supports LPDDR5 memory only, while the Intel chip supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Intel chip records a higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, versus 88.0 GB/s for the AMD chip.

PCIe connectivity differs. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 CPU lanes. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. This represents a significant difference in available I/O bandwidth for connected devices.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD chip uses Radeon 610M graphics, while the Intel chip uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so relative GPU performance cannot be assessed from this data.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel chip boosts higher, while the AMD chip has a higher base clock.

Thermal design power differs: the AMD chip is rated at 15 W, while the Intel chip is rated at 25 W. This represents a 10 W difference in the TDP envelope.

Sockets differ: the AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses AMD Socket FT6, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Process node differs: the AMD chip is built on 6 nm at TSMC, while the Intel chip is built on 3 nm at Intel. The AMD chip has a recorded die size of 100 mm²; the Intel chip's die size is not recorded.

Memory support differs: the AMD chip supports LPDDR5, while the Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth differs as well, with Intel recording 115.2 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe generation and lane count differ: the AMD chip uses Gen 3 with 4 lanes, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a recorded part number of SA4R5Q9EH, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40's part number is unknown. Both processors are active in production, both target the mobile market segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Neither processor supports ECC memory. Release dates differ: the AMD chip launched on 2025-09-30, while the Intel chip launched on 2026-01-04. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.