Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison
Intel Core 5 220H
Core Ultra 9 386H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data presents a sweeping dominance for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Ultra 9 386H finishes ahead. The Core 5 220H does not secure a single win, a result that makes this comparison unusually one-sided. The margin is not uniform, however, and the shape of the deltas reveals where the newer architecture matters most.
The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Ultra 9 386H scores 341 versus 82 for the Core 5 220H, a delta of 76%. This is not a modest edge; it nearly quadruples the output. Integer-heavy workloads that stress branch prediction and instruction-level parallelism benefit enormously from the Panther Lake design. A similar pattern shows in floating point math, where the Ultra 9 386H scores 108527 against 51671, a 52.4% advantage. Extended instructions show a 49.7% gap (29138 versus 14642), and physics simulation lands at 51.2% (3028 versus 1478). These are compute-bound scenarios where the newer core layout and larger per-core resources deliver outsized returns.
Multi-core rendering tests also skew heavily toward the Ultra 9 386H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 against 11198, a 45.5% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 43.1% gap (3223 versus 1835), and R20 multi-core is 39.1% (12820 versus 7812). Data encryption follows at 44% (27150 versus 15216), and the PassMark multithread score is 38.2% higher (35399 versus 21884). Data compression sits at 29.6% (352365 versus 247921), and random string sorting at 32.5% (42135 versus 28438). These results confirm that the Ultra 9 386H does not merely win on core count; it wins by a wide margin in sustained parallel throughput.
Single-thread performance shows a smaller but still decisive gap. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Ultra 9 386H a 10.5% lead (2071.5 versus 1853). R15 single-core is 13.7% (303.5 versus 262). R20 single-core is 39.1% (1809 versus 1102), an outlier that suggests the R20 test may be more sensitive to the memory subsystem or clock behavior. PassMark single-thread shows 4218 versus 3405, a 19.3% edge. Integer math is the tightest overall result, with the Ultra 9 386H ahead by just 15.7% (87284 versus 73555). Even in the closest test, the Core 5 220H cannot close the gap to double digits.
The average benchmark score underlines the split: the Ultra 9 386H averages 43210, while the Core 5 220H averages 28574. The percentile ranking also separates them, with the Ultra 9 386H at the 88th percentile of all CPUs and the Core 5 220H at the 80th. The rival sets confirm the positioning. The Core 5 220H sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS (0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon E-2436 (0.2%). The Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, trades blows with the Intel Core i9-12900 (0.7% behind) and the Core i9-12900KF (0.9% behind), while staying within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465. The data places these two chips in different performance strata entirely.
Architecture Differences
The architectural split between these two mobile processors is stark. The Core 5 220H uses Raptor Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake on a 3 nm node. That process jump alone explains much of the efficiency and performance gap, especially given the TDP difference. The Core 5 220H carries a 45 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H is rated at 25 W. The Ultra 9 386H delivers dramatically higher performance while drawing a lower thermal envelope, a direct consequence of the newer node and core design.
Core counts differ as well. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 386H gains four physical cores, but its thread count matches the Core 5 220H, indicating the Panther Lake part likely relies on a different hybrid arrangement that does not double threads across all cores. The cache hierarchy reinforces the generational leap. The Core 5 220H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. Both share 18 MB of L3, so the total last-level cache is identical, but the larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 9 386H give it a substantial latency advantage for working sets that fit in those caches.
Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 5 220H accepts DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9 386H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X, dropping DDR4 entirely. The Ultra 9 386H also has a rated memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 5 220H has no bandwidth figure recorded. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The removal of DDR4 support on the Panther Lake part signals a move to newer memory standards, which likely contributes to the bandwidth-sensitive benchmark wins.
PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 5 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. The extra four lanes on the Ultra 9 386H allow more headroom for discrete GPUs or high-speed storage. The integrated graphics are different generations as well: the Core 5 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The sockets are not interchangeable, with the Core 5 220H on Intel BGA 1744 and the Ultra 9 386H on Intel BGA 2540.
Release timing matters. The Core 5 220H launched on 2024-12-17, while the Ultra 9 386H launched on 2026-01-04. The year-plus gap allows the Ultra 9 386H to leverage a much newer process and microarchitecture. The Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342, while the Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: Both chips boost to 4.90 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Core 5 220H at 2.70 GHz and the Ultra 9 386H at 2.10 GHz.
Q: Why does the Ultra 9 386H win by such a large margin in multi-core tests despite having the same thread count?
A: The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores versus 12, larger L1 and L2 caches per core (192 KB and 2.5 MB versus 80 KB and 2 MB), and a 3 nm process versus 10 nm. The Cinebench R23 multi-core delta of 45.5% reflects those combined differences.
Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?
A: The Ultra 9 386H leads in all recorded single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4218 versus 3405, a 19.3% advantage, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 versus 1853, a 10.5% edge.
Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?
A: Only the Core 5 220H supports DDR4. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X exclusively.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?
A: The Core 5 220H has a 45 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP. The Ultra 9 386H delivers higher performance at lower power.
Q: Are the sockets compatible with each other?
A: No. The Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.
The Verdict
The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H outperforms the Intel Core 5 220H in every single benchmark in the database. The wins are not marginal; they range from 10.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 76% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 386H is 43210, which is 51.2% higher than the Core 5 220H's 28574. The percentile placement confirms the hierarchy, with the Ultra 9 386H at the 88th percentile and the Core 5 220H at the 80th.
The architecture explains the outcome. The Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm Panther Lake design with 16 cores, 192 KB of L1 per core, and 2.5 MB of L2 per core. The Core 5 220H uses a 10 nm Raptor Lake design with 12 cores, 80 KB of L1 per core, and 2 MB of L2 per core. The TDP figures are equally telling: the Ultra 9 386H achieves this performance at 25 W, while the Core 5 220H requires 45 W. For any workload in the database, the Ultra 9 386H is the correct choice.
The only caveat is the lack of a recorded launch MSRP for the Ultra 9 386H, which prevents a direct price comparison. The Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342. Without a price anchor for the Ultra 9 386H, the analysis rests purely on performance, and that analysis favors the Ultra 9 386H without exception.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in every major architectural specification except boost clock, L3 cache size, and memory bus width. Both boost to 4.90 GHz, both share 18 MB of L3, and both use dual-channel memory. Everywhere else, they diverge.
Core count: 12 for the Core 5 220H, 16 for the Ultra 9 386H. Thread count: 16 for both. Base clock: 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 220H, 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 9 386H. TDP: 45 W versus 25 W. Socket: BGA 1744 versus BGA 2540. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus Panther Lake. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 80EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Release date: 2024-12-17 versus 2026-01-04. Launch MSRP: $342 versus not recorded. Part number: SRQ6SQ5MM versus SA4R5Q9EH. Both lack ECC support and unlocked multipliers.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split favors it across the board. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy tasks: prime number finding (76% delta), floating point math (52.4%), physics (51.2%), and extended instructions (49.7%). Workloads that depend on these operations, such as scientific simulation, financial modeling, and encryption, show the biggest benefit from the Ultra 9 386H.
Multi-core rendering is another strong area for the Ultra 9 386H. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 45.5% advantage, and R15 multi-core is 43.1%. Content creation, video encoding, and 3D rendering workloads should see substantial gains. The PassMark multithread score (38.2% delta) and data compression (29.6%) reinforce this pattern. Data encryption, with a 44% delta, indicates the Ultra 9 386H handles cryptographic workloads far more efficiently.
Single-thread gains are smaller but still present. PassMark single-thread shows a 19.3% edge, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 10.5%. Applications that are lightly threaded, such as office productivity or web browsing, will feel the difference but less dramatically. The tighter integer math margin (15.7%) suggests general-purpose integer code benefits the least, though the Ultra 9 386H still leads.
The Core 5 220H has no winning benchmarks, so there is no workload in the database where it comes out ahead. Its lower TDP does not help it here, as the Ultra 9 386H also runs at 25 W. The Core 5 220H does support DDR4, which could appeal to systems with existing DDR4 memory, but no benchmark measures that compatibility advantage. For any application represented in the recorded tests, the Ultra 9 386H delivers higher performance, often by a wide margin.