Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 7 251E and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H occupy very different positions in the database, and the benchmark results reflect that divide clearly. The Core Ultra 9 386H holds a substantial advantage in the recorded measurements, with an average benchmark score of 43,210 and a percentile rank of 88 among all CPUs. The Core 7 251E, by contrast, records no individual benchmark scores in the database, making direct numeric comparisons impossible for most tests. The data available for the Core Ultra 9 386H, however, offers a detailed picture of its capabilities.

In Cinebench testing, the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers strong results across all versions. The Cinebench R15 multicore score reaches 3,223 points, while the single-core score sits at 303.5 points. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result climbs to 12,820 points, with a single-core score of 1,809. The Cinebench R23 run produces a multicore score of 20,547 and a single-core score of 2,071.5. These numbers indicate a processor capable of handling heavy threaded workloads, with the multicore results scaling well relative to the single-core figures.

PassMark tests add further detail. The multithread score for the Core Ultra 9 386H is 35,399, while the single-thread score is 4,218. Data compression yields 352,365, data encryption produces 27,150, and extended instructions reach 29,138. Floating point math completes at 108,527, integer math at 87,284, and prime number finding at 341. Physics simulation scores 3,028, and random string sorting finishes at 42,135. The spread of these results shows a processor that performs consistently across different instruction types, with the highest absolute scores appearing in compression, floating-point math, and integer math.

The Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries in the database, so its wins cannot be quantified. Its specifications, however, suggest a different design philosophy. It uses 24 cores and 32 threads, a higher core count than the Core Ultra 9 386H, which uses 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 251E also boosts higher, reaching 5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 386H. Yet the absence of measured scores means the database cannot confirm how those specifications translate into real performance.

The rival comparisons for the Core Ultra 9 386H provide context for its standing. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 posts an average score of 43,326, which is 0.3 percent higher than the Core Ultra 9 386H, a negligible gap. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 scores 43,431, 0.5 percent higher. The Intel Core i9-12900 scores 42,906, which is 0.7 percent lower than the Core Ultra 9 386H, and the Intel Core i9-12900KF scores 42,830, 0.9 percent lower. These deltas place the Core Ultra 9 386H in a tight competitive cluster, slightly ahead of two desktop i9 parts from the same manufacturer and slightly behind two AMD mobile parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the only one of the two with measurable performance in the database. With an average benchmark score of 43,210 and a percentile rank of 88, it sits comfortably in the upper tier of all CPUs. The Core 7 251E, with a percentile rank of 50 and no benchmark scores, cannot be positioned against it numerically. For any workload where verified performance matters, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the choice supported by the data.

The Core 7 251E does hold structural advantages that the database records. It has more cores and threads, a higher boost clock, a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus 18 MB, and support for ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 9 386H does not offer. These are meaningful differences for certain types of work. But without benchmark results, the database cannot confirm that these specifications produce superior performance in practice. The Core Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, has a full set of measurements across Cinebench and PassMark, and those measurements place it near the top of the field.

The launch MSRP for the Core 7 251E is $384. The Core Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP. This is the only pricing information available, and the database does not include any other cost-related fields.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every measured category, simply because it is the only processor in this comparison with recorded benchmark results. The Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 scores cover both single-core and multicore workloads, and the PassMark suite adds data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. Across all of these, the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers results that place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins on specification-based advantages. Its 24 cores and 32 threads exceed the 16 cores and 16 threads of the Core Ultra 9 386H. Its boost clock of 5.60 GHz is higher than the 4.90 GHz of the Core Ultra 9 386H. Its 36 MB shared L3 cache is double the 18 MB shared L3 cache of the Core Ultra 9 386H. Its per-core L2 cache is 2 MB, compared with 2.5 MB for the Core Ultra 9 386H, and its per-core L1 cache is 80 KB, compared with 192 KB for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The Core 7 251E also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 386H does not. These are the advantages that the database records for the Core 7 251E, even though no benchmark scores exist to validate their impact.

The Core 7 251E also carries a higher TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is rated at 25 watts. This difference is not a performance metric, but it does indicate that the Core 7 251E is designed for a desktop socket with more thermal headroom, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is designed for mobile use with a lower power envelope. The socket types differ accordingly: the Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43,210. The Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0, and it has no individual benchmark entries in the database.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 386H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 43,326, which is 0.3 percent higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 scores 43,431, which is 0.5 percent higher. The Intel Core i9-12900 scores 42,906, which is 0.7 percent lower. The Intel Core i9-12900KF scores 42,830, which is 0.9 percent lower.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E uses a 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not.

Q: What are the cache sizes for the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and different design targets. The Intel Core 7 251E is a desktop processor from the Bartlett Lake codename, listed in the database as Core 7 (Bartlett Lake). It uses a 10 nm process node and an Intel Socket 1700. Its die size is 257 mm². The Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 3. It uses a 3 nm process node and an Intel BGA 2540 socket, indicating a mobile design. The database does not record a die size for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 7 251E therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, while the Core Ultra 9 386H does not appear to, based on the equal core and thread counts. The base clocks are the same at 2.10 GHz for both, but the boost clocks differ: 5.60 GHz for the Core 7 251E and 4.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 7 251E allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Core Ultra 9 386H contrast with the larger shared L3 cache on the Core 7 251E.

Memory support varies as well. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251E and 115.2 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9 386H. ECC memory is supported only on the Core 7 251E.

PCIe connectivity shows a similar split. The Core 7 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, and the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Power ratings reflect the different market segments. The Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 watts, and the Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The release dates are also distinct: the Core 7 251E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 9 386H on 2026-01-04. Both processors are currently marked as active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 251E has a launch MSRP of $384, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP.