Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 7 240H. No benchmark in the database favors the Core 7, which makes the comparison less about close competition and more about the magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage.

The largest single gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Ultra 9 scores 341 against the Core 7's 102, a delta of -70.1%. That is the widest margin in the entire comparison, and it suggests a dramatically stronger integer-heavy workload capability. The Core 7 trails by more than two thirds in that specific test.

PassMark data encryption shows another major split. The Ultra 9 records 27150 while the Core 7 manages 15155, a -44.2% difference. Extended instructions follow closely, with the Ultra 9 at 29138 and the Core 7 at 16897, a -42% gap. Floating point math also favors the Ultra 9 heavily: 108527 versus 58905, a -45.7% delta. These three PassMark subtests cluster in the 42% to 46% range, indicating a consistent and substantial throughput advantage in computationally dense operations.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 12820 against the Core 7's 8562, a -33.2% gap. The same -33.2% delta appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Ultra 9 posts 1809 versus 1208. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a slightly narrower margin at -23.3%: 20547 versus 15764. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the smallest multi-core gap at -26.8%: 3223 versus 2360.

Single-core performance differences are smaller but still clear. PassMark single-thread shows the Ultra 9 at 4218 versus the Core 7's 3782, a -10.3% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2071.5 versus 1719, a -17% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 303.5 versus 249, an -18% delta. The single-core margins are roughly half the size of the multi-core margins, which suggests the multi-core wins come from both per-core improvements and additional cores.

PassMark multithread delivers a -32.3% delta: 35399 versus 23975. Physics simulation shows a -43.1% gap: 3028 versus 1723. Random string sorting shows -31.5%: 42135 versus 28866. Data compression shows -22.9%: 352365 versus 271774. Integer math shows the smallest margin of all at -7.9%: 87284 versus 80396. Even in the test where the two are closest, the Ultra 9 still leads.

The average benchmark score difference is substantial. The Ultra 9 averages 43210 across all benchmarks, while the Core 7 averages 31483. That is roughly a 37% advantage in average score. The percentile rankings also separate them: the Ultra 9 sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 sits at the 82nd percentile.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The Core 7's closest competitors include the Intel Core i5-13500 at a -0.1% delta and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H also at -0.1%. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-12900 at a +0.7% delta and the Intel Core i9-12900KF at +0.9%. This places the Ultra 9 in desktop-class performance territory, while the Core 7 competes with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. The process node difference of 7 nm is the single largest architectural gap between them.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 7 has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both support 16 threads, but the Ultra 9 achieves this with more physical cores and no hyperthreading, while the Core 7 relies on hyperthreading to reach 16 threads from 10 cores. The Ultra 9's 60% higher core count explains much of its multi-core benchmark advantage.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 7 uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has substantially more per-core L1 and L2 cache, but the Core 7 has 6 MB more shared L3. The larger L3 on the Core 7 does not compensate for the Ultra 9's per-core cache advantages in the benchmark results.

Clock speeds favor the Core 7 on paper. The Core 7 has a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 5.20 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 9 has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. Despite lower clocks, the Ultra 9 wins every benchmark, which indicates that the architectural efficiency of Panther Lake at 3 nm outweighs the raw clock advantage of Raptor Lake on 10 nm.

Power envelopes move in opposite directions. The Core 7 has a 45 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 has a 25 W TDP. The Ultra 9 delivers higher performance at nearly half the power budget. That combination of lower TDP and higher scores is a defining characteristic of the newer architecture.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, dropping DDR4 entirely. The Ultra 9 also lists a memory bandwidth figure of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 7 has no recorded memory bandwidth value in the database.

PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 7 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 has 4 additional PCIe lanes for CPU-attached devices.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not record execution unit counts for the Xe3, but the architectural generation is newer.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 7 uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2540. These are physically different packages, so neither processor can be swapped into a board designed for the other.

Release dates differ by roughly a year. The Core 7 launched on 2024-12-17, while the Ultra 9 launched on 2026-01-04. The Ultra 9 is the newer part by about 13 months.

The Core 7 carries a launch MSRP of $502. The Ultra 9 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H outperforms the Intel Core 7 240H in every recorded test. The smallest margin is -7.9% in PassMark integer math, and the largest is -70.1% in PassMark find prime numbers. There is no workload category in the database where the Core 7 takes a win.

The Ultra 9 also holds advantages beyond raw scores. It uses a 3 nm process versus 10 nm, operates at 25 W versus 45 W, and includes 16 cores versus 10. It reaches the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Core 7's 82nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include desktop-class Intel Core i9-12900 parts, while the Core 7's nearest rivals are mid-range mobile and desktop chips.

The Core 7 does retain some specification advantages. It has a higher base clock (2.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz), and more shared L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB). It also supports DDR4 memory, which the Ultra 9 does not. These advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

The data indicates that the Ultra 9 is the stronger processor for essentially all measured workloads. The Core 7's remaining appeal would have to rest on its higher clocks and DDR4 compatibility, but the benchmark results show those features do not produce competitive scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has a 5.20 GHz boost clock, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's 4.90 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 341 versus the Core 7's 102, a -70.1% delta.

Q: Which processor uses less power?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP, while the Intel Core 7 240H has a 45 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 7 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. Multi-threaded workloads show the biggest gaps. Cinebench R20 multi-core produces a -33.2% delta, PassMark multithread produces -32.3%, and Cinebench R23 multi-core produces -23.3%. These tests exercise all cores simultaneously, and the Ultra 9's 16 physical cores give it a structural advantage.

Single-thread performance also favors the Ultra 9, but by smaller margins. PassMark single-thread shows -10.3%, Cinebench R23 single-core shows -17%, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows -18%. The per-core architectural efficiency of Panther Lake overcomes the Core 7's higher boost clock.

Encryption and instruction-heavy workloads show some of the largest deltas. PassMark data encryption shows -44.2%, and PassMark extended instructions shows -42%. Floating point math shows -45.7%, and physics simulation shows -43.1%. These results suggest the Ultra 9's newer architecture handles specialized instruction paths more efficiently.

The Intel Core 7 240H has no benchmark wins in the database. Its specification advantages include a 5.20 GHz boost clock, 24 MB of shared L3 cache, and DDR4 memory support. The data does not show these translating into any recorded performance win. The Core 7's closest benchmark result is PassMark integer math, where it trails by only -7.9%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

| Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.90 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) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 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 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | Not recorded |

| Average benchmark score | 31483 | 43210 |

| Percentile | 82 | 88 |

The specification table highlights where the two processors diverge. The Ultra 9 leads in cores, process node, per-core cache, PCIe lanes, and memory bandwidth. The Core 7 leads in clock speeds, shared L3 cache, and memory type flexibility. The benchmark data consistently favors the Ultra 9's architectural advantages.