Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all multi-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20547 versus 11830 for the Intel Core 5 210H, a 42.4% advantage. The PassMark multithread test shows 35399 versus 18252, a 48.4% lead.

Q: How does single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H leads in every single-core test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 versus 1771, a 14.5% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores are 4218 versus 3539, a 16.1% difference.

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

A: The Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 9 has double the cores but the same thread count as the Core 5's thread count, indicating a different architecture approach.

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Core 5 210H reaches 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are similar, with the Core 5 at 2.20 GHz and the Core Ultra 9 at 2.10 GHz.

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings?

A: The Core 5 210H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Core Ultra 9 delivers significantly higher performance with a lower power envelope.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 5 210H uses Iris Xe Graphics 48EU, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not provide direct graphics benchmarks, but the newer Xe3 architecture on the Core Ultra 9 represents a different generation.

Q: Which CPU has the higher overall benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, compared to 24872 for the Core 5 210H. The Core Ultra 9 sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 is at the 77th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Core 5 210H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically from the Raptor Lake-H refresh line, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture from the Panther Lake-H generation, built on a 3 nm process node, also at Intel's foundry.

The core topology differs substantially. The Core 5 210H packs 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H doubles the core count to 16 cores with 16 threads. The thread count being equal to core count on the Core Ultra 9 indicates no hyperthreading on that part, while the Core 5's 12 threads from 8 cores shows hyperthreading on some cores.

Cache hierarchies show a generational leap. The Core 5 210H provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H increases these figures to 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, and the database records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9.

PCI Express connectivity differs. The Core 5 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different as well: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 5 and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9.

The Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product family, while no series designation is recorded for the Core 5 210H. The release dates differ, with the Core 5 launching in December 2024 and the Core Ultra 9 in January 2026. The Core 5 has a recorded launch MSRP of $342, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 9.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with zero wins recorded for the Intel Core 5 210H. The performance gap ranges from a modest 14.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core to a massive 84.5% in PassMark find prime numbers.

The Core Ultra 9 386H occupies the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 210H sits at the 77th percentile. The average benchmark scores reflect this separation: 43210 for the Core Ultra 9 versus 24872 for the Core 5, a 43.2% difference in overall average score.

For workloads that stress multi-core performance, the Core Ultra 9 is the clear choice. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 49.3% advantage, and PassMark multithread shows a 48.4% lead. The Core Ultra 9 also leads in single-core tests, though by smaller margins: 14.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 16.1% in PassMark single-thread.

The power efficiency picture favors the Core Ultra 9 as well. Despite delivering substantially higher performance across every recorded metric, it carries a TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 5 210H. The newer 3 nm process node on the Core Ultra 9 explains part of this efficiency advantage.

Users requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, such as content creation, data compression, or scientific workloads, should select the Core Ultra 9 386H. The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 5 210H comes out ahead. The Core 5 remains a functional mobile processor, but the Core Ultra 9 dominates every measured workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 210H | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release Date | December 2024 | January 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $342 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 386H wins every recorded head-to-head comparison. The largest margins appear in mathematically intensive and parallel workloads. PassMark find prime numbers shows the Core Ultra 9 at 341 versus 53 for the Core 5, a 84.5% advantage. PassMark floating point math shows 108527 versus 45057, a 58.5% lead. PassMark data encryption records 27150 versus 12187, a 55.1% difference.

The Cinebench suite confirms the multi-core dominance. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12820 versus 6504, a 49.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 3223 versus 1757, a 45.5% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 20547 versus 11830, a 42.4% difference.

PassMark multithread results show 35399 versus 18252, a 48.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 9. PassMark physics records 3028 versus 1040, a 65.7% lead. PassMark extended instructions show 29138 versus 13370, a 54.1% difference. PassMark random string sorting records 42135 versus 23451, a 44.3% advantage.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the Core Ultra 9. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 versus 1771, a 14.5% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1809 versus 918, a 49.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303.5 versus 247, an 18.6% difference. PassMark single-thread records 4218 versus 3539, a 16.1% advantage.

PassMark integer math shows a 29.5% lead for the Core Ultra 9, with scores of 87284 versus 61503. PassMark data compression records 352365 versus 217805, a 38.2% advantage. The narrowest margin in the entire comparison is the 14.5% difference in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the widest is the 84.5% gap in find prime numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. The productivity-focused workloads show consistent advantages. Data compression scores favor the Core Ultra 9 by 38.2%, data encryption by 55.1%, and random string sorting by 44.3%. These results point to strong performance in file archiving, data processing, and sorting tasks.

Mathematical workloads show the largest gaps. Floating point math delivers a 58.5% advantage, integer math a 29.5% lead, and extended instructions a 54.1% difference. The find prime numbers test shows the most extreme separation at 84.5%. These results indicate the Core Ultra 9 handles computation-heavy tasks such as scientific simulations, financial modeling, and code compilation with substantially greater throughput.

Content creation and rendering workloads follow the same pattern. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 42.4% advantage, Cinebench R20 multi-core a 49.3% lead, and Cinebench R15 multi-core a 45.5% difference. The Core Ultra 9 also leads in the physics simulation test by 65.7%.

The Intel Core 5 210H has no recorded benchmark wins against the Core Ultra 9. Its closest results are in single-threaded workloads, where it trails by 14.5% to 18.6%. The Core 5 does offer a different memory compatibility profile with DDR4 support, which may matter for systems using older memory modules, but no benchmark data supports a performance advantage in that configuration.

For users choosing between these two processors, the data points exclusively to the Core Ultra 9 386H. Every recorded benchmark, from multi-core rendering to single-thread responsiveness, shows the Core Ultra 9 ahead. The lower TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts further reinforces the Core Ultra 9 as the superior mobile processor across all measured criteria.