AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

# FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X features 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H offers 16 cores and 16 threads. The Threadripper has double the thread count of the Intel part, which directly affects multithreaded workload performance.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H reaches 5.10 GHz. The AMD part also has a base clock of 4.20 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz for the Intel processor.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel chip uses a smaller process node, though the AMD chip uses a larger die configuration.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has no integrated graphics (N/A), requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X supports DDR5 memory with a quad-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X targets the desktop segment with a 350 W TDP and an AMD Socket sTR5. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H targets the mobile segment with a 25 W TDP and an Intel BGA 2540 socket.

# Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Shimada Peak. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture under the same codename. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: the Threadripper is a high-core-count desktop processor, while the Core Ultra X9 is a mobile processor with a much lower thermal envelope.

The process nodes differ. AMD uses a 4 nm process at TSMC with 33,260 million transistors spread across a 4x 70.6 mm² die configuration. Intel uses a 3 nm process at its own foundry, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The AMD chip has a larger aggregate die area, reflecting its 24-core design.

Cache hierarchies are significantly different. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip offers substantially more total L3 cache, which benefits workloads with large working sets. The Intel chip has more L1 and L2 cache per core, which can help per-core performance in certain latency-sensitive tasks.

Memory support differs. The AMD processor uses DDR5 with a quad-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel processor uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel memory bus and 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the AMD chip but not on the Intel chip. The AMD chip also has far more PCIe connectivity: 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) on the Intel part. This makes the Threadripper suitable for multi-GPU and high-bandwidth storage configurations.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, whereas the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has no integrated graphics. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel chip is locked. The Intel chip is a mobile part with a 25 W TDP and a BGA 2540 socket, while the AMD chip is a desktop part with a 350 W TDP and an AMD Socket sTR5.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data shows clear separation between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44,466 and ranks in the 88th percentile against all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50. This means the database contains no direct performance measurements for the Threadripper 9960X, while the Intel part has 17 recorded benchmark results.

For the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, the nearest rivals provide context. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D scores 44,573, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel chip. The Intel Core i9-13950HX scores 44,342, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 44,309, which is 0.4% lower. The Intel Core i5-13600 scores 44,240, which is 0.5% lower. These deltas are all within 0.5%, indicating that the Core Ultra X9 388H sits in a tightly contested performance band.

Given the absence of benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X, the recorded data cannot confirm its performance position. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, however, has verified scores across Cinebench and Passmark workloads. The AMD chip offers more cores, threads, cache, memory bandwidth, PCIe lanes, and a higher boost clock on paper, but the database has no measurements to validate those theoretical advantages.

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, making it suitable for laptop environments. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X is a desktop processor with a 350 W TDP, requiring a platform with substantial cooling and power delivery. The choice between them depends on platform requirements: the AMD chip needs an sTR5 motherboard and discrete graphics, while the Intel chip is a BGA mobile part with integrated graphics.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | 9000 series | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 48 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5 (Shimada Peak)) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | null |

| Die Size | 4x 70.6 mm² | null |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | true | false |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-07-29 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $1499 | null |

| Multiplier Unlocked | true | false |

| Part Number | 100-000001595 | SA4QWQ9EK |

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H across 17 tests, but no benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X. A direct head-to-head comparison is therefore limited to the Intel chip's recorded performance against its nearest rivals.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2,955. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 309.5. These results show strong multicore scaling relative to its 16 cores and 16 threads. The chip's thread count equals its core count, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, yet the multicore score is roughly 9.5 times the single-core score, indicating efficient scaling across cores.

In Cinebench R20, the Intel chip scores 13,101 in multicore and 1,849 in single-core. The multicore-to-single-core ratio is approximately 7.1. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 18,911 and the single-core score is 2,200.5, a ratio of about 8.6. These Cinebench results place the Core Ultra X9 388H in a competitive position against its nearest rivals, all of which have average scores between 44,240 and 44,573.

Passmark results for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H show varied performance across workload types. The multithread score is 36,811, while the single-thread score is 4,280. The data compression score is 361,763, and the data encryption score is 28,490. Extended instructions score 29,943. Finding prime numbers scores 358. Floating point math scores 112,550, and integer math scores 90,882. Physics scores 3,226. Random string sorting scores 44,010.

The average benchmark score of 44,466 for the Intel chip is within 0.5% of all four nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D is 0.2% higher, the Intel Core i9-13950HX is 0.3% lower, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i5-13600 is 0.5% lower. This clustering suggests that the Core Ultra X9 388H delivers performance consistent with mid-range desktop and high-end mobile processors.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X has no recorded benchmark scores, so the database cannot quantify its performance in any of these tests. The head-to-head benchmark section therefore cannot report wins for either processor based on measured data. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has verified scores and a percentile rank of 88, while the Threadripper 9960X has a percentile rank of 50 with no scores.

The biggest measurable wins for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H come from its single-thread and multicore Cinebench results. A single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2,200.5 indicates strong per-thread performance for a 25 W mobile part. The multicore score of 18,911 in Cinebench R23 demonstrates that 16 physical cores can handle demanding rendering workloads despite the absence of hyper-threading.

For the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9960X, the database records no wins because no benchmarks exist. The specification sheet shows 24 cores, 48 threads, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, 128 MB of L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, but these are unverified by recorded measurements. The data confirms only that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has measurable performance, while the Threadripper 9960X remains untested in this database.