Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Intel Core 7 250H and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H are both active mobile processors from Intel, but they represent distinctly different design philosophies and performance tiers. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Core Ultra 9 386H, which secures 16 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 7 250H manages a single victory. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 386H sits at 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 250H averages 35728 and sits in the 85th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H dominates nearly every workload category in the recorded data. Its most decisive advantages appear in PassMark's extended instructions test, where it scores 29138 against 17318 for the Core 7 250H, a performance gap of 40.6 percent. The Ultra 9 also shows massive leads in prime number finding (341 versus 106, a 68.9 percent advantage) and floating point math (108527 versus 65094, a 40 percent advantage). These results indicate the Ultra 9 architecture is substantially stronger in compute-heavy, math-intensive tasks.

The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins all Cinebench tests. The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 multicore, where it scores 12820 against 9697, a 24.4 percent lead. The same 24.4 percent gap appears in Cinebench R20 singlecore (1809 versus 1368). Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 19.4 percent advantage (20547 versus 16561), while the singlecore gap narrows to 6.8 percent (2071.5 versus 1931). Cinebench R15 results are closer, with the Ultra 9 ahead by 2.4 percent in multicore (3223 versus 3147) and 1.8 percent in singlecore (303.5 versus 298).

The Intel Core 7 250H's single win comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 99100 against 87284, a 13.5 percent advantage. This is a notable result because it shows the Core 7's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz can still deliver a meaningful edge in certain integer-heavy workloads, despite the Ultra 9 winning most other tests. The Core 7 250H also shows a much smaller deficit in PassMark single-thread performance, trailing by only 1.7 percent (4218 versus 4148), which suggests its per-core clock advantage helps narrow the gap in lightly threaded scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design families. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also codenamed Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process node. This process node difference is significant, as the 3 nm node allows for substantially higher transistor density and efficiency compared to the older 10 nm node.

Core configuration differs notably. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core 7 relies on hyperthreading to reach 20 threads from 14 cores, whereas the Ultra 9 has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, resulting in a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. The Ultra 9's higher physical core count likely contributes to its multicore performance advantage in Cinebench R20 and R23.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 7 250H provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H offers a larger per-core footprint with 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9's larger L1 and L2 caches may explain its strong showing in extended instructions and floating point math, where data locality and per-core cache capacity matter.

Clock speeds favor the Core 7 250H. It has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 386H runs at a 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The Core 7's 500 MHz higher boost clock gives it a raw clock advantage, but the Ultra 9's architectural efficiency on the 3 nm node appears to compensate in most workloads. Thermal design power also differs: the Core 7 is rated at 45 watts, while the Ultra 9 is rated at 25 watts.

Socket and platform support vary. The Core 7 250H uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. PCIe connectivity differs, with the Core 7 offering Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes and the Ultra 9 offering Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes. Memory support sees the Core 7 supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a consistent pattern where the Core Ultra 9 386H wins by larger margins in more demanding, multi-threaded workloads. The biggest single margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 scores 341 against the Core 7's 106, a 68.9 percent advantage. This test is particularly sensitive to architectural improvements like wider SIMD units and better instruction handling, which the Panther Lake design delivers.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 40.6 percent gap (29138 versus 17318), and PassMark floating point math shows a 40 percent gap (108527 versus 65094). These are the second and third largest margins respectively. The Ultra 9 also wins PassMark physics by 39.8 percent (3028 versus 1824) and PassMark data encryption by 32.9 percent (27150 versus 18206). The physics test is often correlated with gaming performance, suggesting the Ultra 9 handles simulation workloads more effectively.

The Core 7 250H's victory in PassMark integer math (99100 versus 87284, a 13.5 percent lead) stands out as the only test where the older architecture wins. This result suggests that the Core 7's high boost clock and Raptor Lake's integer execution units are well-suited to certain types of integer operations, even against a newer rival. However, the Ultra 9's wins in multithread (35399 versus 27030, a 23.6 percent lead), data compression (352365 versus 303269, a 13.9 percent lead), and random string sorting (42135 versus 34136, a 19 percent lead) confirm its overall superiority in mixed workloads.

Cinebench results show the Ultra 9's advantage growing with newer test versions. In Cinebench R15, the multicore gap is just 2.4 percent (3223 versus 3147). In R20, it expands to 24.4 percent (12820 versus 9697). In R23, it settles at 19.4 percent (20547 versus 16561). This pattern indicates that the Ultra 9 scales better with longer, more complex rendering workloads. Singlecore Cinebench results follow a similar trend: 1.8 percent in R15, 24.4 percent in R20, and 6.8 percent in R23.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 9 386H's boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two chips?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 uses hyperthreading to achieve more threads than cores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the benchmark data?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 341 against the Core 7 250H's 106, a 68.9 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Core 7 250H win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Core 7 250H wins PassMark integer math with a score of 99100 versus 87284, a 13.5 percent advantage over the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Core 7 250H has an average of 35728. The Ultra 9 ranks in the 88th percentile, and the Core 7 ranks in the 85th percentile.

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings differ?

A: The Core 7 250H is rated at 45 watts TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is rated at 25 watts TDP, indicating the Ultra 9 is designed for lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification category. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 7 250H uses 14 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds favor the Core 7, with a 2.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost against the Ultra 9's 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. Thermal design power also favors the Ultra 9 at 25 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 7.

The socket interface is different: the Core 7 uses Intel BGA 1744, and the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2540. Process node and architecture differ significantly, with the Core 7 on a 10 nm Raptor Lake design and the Ultra 9 on a 3 nm Panther Lake design. Cache configurations vary, with the Core 7 offering 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared, while the Ultra 9 offers 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 7 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with the Ultra 9 recording a 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth. PCIe lanes also differ, with the Core 7 providing 8 Gen 5 CPU-only lanes and the Ultra 9 providing 12 Gen 5 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well: the Core 7 uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The release dates differ, with the Core 7 released on 2024-12-17 and the Ultra 9 on 2026-01-04. The Core 7 has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Core 7's part number is SRQ6UQ5MK, and the Ultra 9's is SA4R5Q9EH.