Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison
Intel Core 5 210H
Core Ultra X9 388H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 210H vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 210H has 8 cores and 12 threads.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H boosts up to 5.10 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz for the Intel Core 5 210H. The base clocks are nearly identical, with the Core 5 210H at 2.20 GHz and the Ultra X9 at 2.10 GHz.
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H records an average benchmark score of 44466, versus 24872 for the Intel Core 5 210H. The Ultra X9 sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 210H sits in the 77th percentile.
Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is fabricated on a 3 nm process, while the Intel Core 5 210H uses a 10 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra X9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 210H has no such figure recorded.
Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?
A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 5 210H records zero wins.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 5 210H is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node and fits into the Intel BGA 1744 socket. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process and uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket.
Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core 5 210H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 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 Ultra X9 also supports LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 210H supports DDR4 and DDR5 without a recorded bandwidth figure.
Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 210H pairs with Iris Xe Graphics 48EU, while the Ultra X9 388H integrates Arc B390 graphics. The PCIe implementation also differs: the Core 5 210H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The Ultra X9 388H has a lower TDP at 25 watts, compared to 45 watts for the Core 5 210H.
Where Each One Wins
The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every recorded benchmark, 17 out of 17. This includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core, and every PassMark workload in the database. The Intel Core 5 210H has no benchmark victories in this comparison.
The Core 5 210H does have specific advantages outside of raw performance. It supports DDR4 memory, which can be relevant for certain system configurations, and it uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket rather than the newer BGA 2540. Its 8 CPU PCIe lanes are double the 4 lanes of the Ultra X9, which matters for external device bandwidth. It also has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, though this is a minor edge.
The Ultra X9 388H dominates in every computational workload recorded. Its largest relative wins come in PassMark find prime numbers (85.2% ahead), PassMark physics (67.8% ahead), and PassMark floating point math (60% ahead). The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread performance, where it leads by 17.3%. This pattern shows that the Ultra X9 gains more from multi-threaded workloads and compute-heavy tasks than from lightly threaded operations, though it wins those too.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core 5 210H | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |
| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |
| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel BGA 2540 |
| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |
| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 3 MB per core |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB shared | 18 MB shared |
| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |
| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 153.6 GB/s |
| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |
| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Arc B390 |
| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-01-04 |
| Launch MSRP | $342 | Not recorded |
The release dates show a generational gap, with the Core 5 210H arriving in December 2024 and the Ultra X9 388H in January 2026. The production status for both is Active. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H delivers its most decisive win in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 358 versus 53 for the Core 5 210H, a delta of 85.2%. This workload is highly dependent on integer computation and cache efficiency, and the Ultra X9's larger caches plus newer architecture produce a massive gap.
In PassMark physics, the Ultra X9 scores 3226 against 1040, a 67.8% advantage. Floating point math shows a 60% lead, with scores of 112550 versus 45057. Data encryption shows a 57.2% gap, scoring 28490 versus 12187. Extended instructions follow closely at 55.3%, with 29943 versus 13370.
Multi-threaded rendering benchmarks show consistent leads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra X9 scores 13101 versus 6504, a 50.4% delta. The same 50.4% delta appears in PassMark multithread, where the Ultra X9 scores 36811 versus 18252. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 40.5% lead, with 2955 versus 1757. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 37.4% lead, with 18911 versus 11830.
Single-core results are closer but still favor the Ultra X9. PassMark single-thread scores show 4280 versus 3539, a 17.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2200.5 versus 1771, a 19.5% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 309.5 versus 247, a 20.2% lead. The smallest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra X9 scores 1849 versus 918, a 50.4% delta, which is unexpectedly large for a single-core test.
Data compression shows a 39.8% lead, with 361763 versus 217805. Random string sorting shows a 46.7% lead, with 44010 versus 23451. Integer math shows a 32.3% lead, with 90882 versus 61503.
The pattern across all 17 benchmarks is uniform. The Ultra X9 388H leads by double digits in every test, with margins ranging from 17.3% to 85.2%. The Core 5 210H does not approach parity in any workload.
The Verdict
The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is decisively faster than the Intel Core 5 210H across every recorded workload. The 16-core, 16-thread configuration on a 3 nm process with 18 MB of L3 cache produces scores that place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 44466. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% behind) and the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% ahead), indicating that it competes with high-end desktop and mobile parts.
The Intel Core 5 210H, by comparison, sits in the 77th percentile with an average score of 24872. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13620H (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (0.2% behind). This places it in a solid mid-range tier, but the gap to the Ultra X9 388H is substantial.
For users who prioritize raw computational throughput, rendering performance, or data-heavy workloads, the Ultra X9 388H is the clear choice from the data. Its leads in multi-core Cinebench tests range from 37.4% to 50.4%, and its PassMark physics and floating point results are roughly 60% to 68% higher. Even in single-threaded tasks, where the Core 5 210H might be expected to close the gap, the Ultra X9 maintains a 17% to 20% advantage in most tests.
The Core 5 210H does offer certain practical advantages. Its 45 W TDP suggests a higher power envelope, which can be useful in systems with adequate cooling. Its 8 CPU PCIe lanes provide more direct CPU-attached bandwidth than the 4 lanes on the Ultra X9. It also supports DDR4 memory, which may be more accessible in some system builds. Its launch MSRP is $342, though no comparable figure exists for the Ultra X9.
However, the benchmark results show no workload where the Core 5 210H outperforms the Ultra X9 388H. The 17-0 win count in the head-to-head comparison reflects a consistent performance hierarchy. The Ultra X9 388H also runs at a lower 25 W TDP while delivering higher performance, which indicates better efficiency per watt in the recorded data.
For a mobile platform where battery life and thermals matter, the Ultra X9 388H's combination of lower TDP and higher scores makes it the stronger option based on the measurements. For a system that needs DDR4 compatibility or more CPU PCIe lanes, the Core 5 210H has specific advantages, but those are not reflected in any benchmark score. The data shows a single conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the faster processor in every measured dimension.