Intel Core i3-14100F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every single head-to-head test in the database. Out of 17 recorded comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 386H takes all 17, while the Intel Core i3-14100F records zero wins. This is not a close contest by any measure, and the margin varies from moderate in single-threaded workloads to overwhelming in heavily parallel tasks.

The Core i3-14100F does not hold a single category advantage. Even in areas where a lower-core-count desktop part might normally be expected to compete, such as single-core performance, the Core Ultra 9 386H leads. The closest margins appear in single-threaded tests, where the Core Ultra 9 386H is 10.4% ahead in PassMark single-thread and 10.8% ahead in Cinebench R23 single-core. These are the only two tests where the gap falls below 36%. Every other benchmark shows a lead of at least 36.3%, with several exceeding 60%.

The largest victory for the Core Ultra 9 386H comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 341 against 61 for the Core i3-14100F, a delta of 82.1%. That workload is particularly punishing for the desktop chip. PassMark data encryption shows a 67.1% lead, floating point math a 67.4% lead, and physics a 64.4% lead. These results all point to the same conclusion: the Core Ultra 9 386H is the stronger processor across every measured workload.

The average benchmark score reinforces this split. The Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core i3-14100F averages 18519, placing it in the 72nd percentile. The Core Ultra 9 386H sits alongside the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at a 0.3% deficit, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at a 0.5% deficit, and the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF at 0.7% and 0.9% advantages respectively. The Core i3-14100F, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i5-13420H with a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300GE with a 0.1% lead, and the Intel Core i3-13100 with a 0.8% lead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel lineages. The Core i3-14100F is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refinement, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen family. The Core Ultra 9 386H is a Panther Lake part, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3 family and the Panther Lake-H generation. This is a fundamental architectural split, not just a difference in core counts.

The process nodes differ substantially. The Core i3-14100F uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The die size for the desktop part is 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the mobile part. The transistor counts are not recorded for either processor.

Core configuration is a major differentiator. The Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it has no simultaneous multithreading on any of its cores. Despite having equal core and thread counts, the Core Ultra 9 386H still massively outperforms the Core i3-14100F in multi-threaded tests, thanks to its higher core count and newer architecture.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core i3-14100F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Panther Lake part contribute to its single-thread advantage.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core i3-14100F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with ECC enabled. The Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and does not support ECC. The desktop part uses an Intel Socket 1700, while the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2540.

The integrated graphics situation could not be more different. The Core i3-14100F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the F suffix. The Core Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. This means the desktop chip requires a discrete GPU, while the mobile chip can drive displays on its own.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core i3-14100F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. The desktop part offers more PCIe lanes, which is typical for a socketed desktop processor.

Clock speeds are recorded as follows. The Core i3-14100F has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The mobile part boosts higher but idles at a much lower base clock. The thermal design power figures are 58 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part.

The release dates are also recorded. The Core i3-14100F launched on 2024-01-07 with a launch MSRP of $109. The Core Ultra 9 386H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a pattern of increasing advantage for the Core Ultra 9 386H as thread count becomes more important. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 303.5 against 186 for the Core i3-14100F, a 38.7% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 3223 against 1318, a 59.1% lead. Cinebench R20 shows a similar shape: single-core is 1809 against 775, a 57.2% lead, and multi-core is 12820 against 5495, a 57.1% lead. Cinebench R23 narrows the single-core gap to 10.8%, with scores of 2071.5 and 1847, but the multi-core gap remains large at 36.3%, with scores of 20547 and 13084.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Core Ultra 9 386H is most dominant. PassMark data compression shows 352365 against 176106, a 50% lead. Data encryption shows 27150 against 8922, a 67.1% lead. Extended instructions show 29138 against 11984, a 58.9% lead. Find prime numbers shows the largest gap of any test: 341 against 61, an 82.1% lead. Floating point math shows 108527 against 35370, a 67.4% lead. Integer math shows 87284 against 45357, a 48% lead. Multithread shows 35399 against 15420, a 56.4% lead. Physics shows 3028 against 1077, a 64.4% lead. Random string sorting shows 42135 against 17596, a 58.2% lead.

The single-thread PassMark results are the closest of the entire comparison. The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 4218 against 3778 for the Core i3-14100F, a 10.4% lead. This is consistent with the Cinebench R23 single-core result, which showed a 10.8% lead. The data suggests that in lightly threaded workloads, the newer Panther Lake architecture provides a modest but consistent edge, while in heavily threaded workloads, the 16-core configuration simply overwhelms the 4-core desktop part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-14100F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i3-14100F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the F suffix. The Core Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547, which is 36.3% higher than the Core i3-14100F's score of 13084.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-14100F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not.

Q: What process node does each processor use?

A: The Core i3-14100F uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel's 3 nm process.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The closest results are in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 9 386H leads by 10.4%, and Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 10.8%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Core i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads; the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clocks are 3.50 GHz and 2.10 GHz respectively, while boost clocks are 4.70 GHz and 4.90 GHz. Thermal design power is 58 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core i3-14100F, Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The architectures are Raptor Lake and Panther Lake respectively. The process nodes are 10 nm and 3 nm, both from Intel. The die size is 163 mm² for the desktop part, with no die size recorded for the mobile part.

Cache configurations differ at every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the Core i3-14100F and 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 9 386H. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs. The Core i3-14100F supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while no memory bandwidth is recorded for the Core i3-14100F. ECC support is present on the Core i3-14100F and absent on the Core Ultra 9 386H.

PCIe support differs in lane count: Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the desktop part, Gen 5 with 12 lanes on the mobile part. Integrated graphics are absent on the Core i3-14100F and present as Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Core Ultra 9 386H. The market segments are Desktop and Mobile respectively. Both processors have locked multipliers. The release dates are 2024-01-07 for the Core i3-14100F and 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The Core i3-14100F has a launch MSRP of $109, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has no launch MSRP recorded.

The average benchmark scores are 18519 for the Core i3-14100F and 43210 for the Core Ultra 9 386H. The percentile ranks are 72 and 88 respectively.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score of 43210 against 18519, and ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs compared to the 72nd percentile for the Core i3-14100F.

The Core i3-14100F remains a functional desktop processor for users who require a low-power, socketed part with ECC memory support. Its 4 cores and 8 threads, 12 MB of L3 cache, and 58 W TDP make it suitable for basic desktop workloads. Its launch MSRP of $109 positions it as an entry-level option, though pricing details are not part of this analysis. It also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, more than the 12 lanes on the mobile part, which is relevant for discrete GPU configurations.

The Core Ultra 9 386H, however, delivers more than double the average benchmark score and leads by margins ranging from 10.4% to 82.1% across all tests. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, larger per-core caches, 3 nm process, and integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics make it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing performance. The only recorded advantages for the Core i3-14100F are its lower TDP, ECC support, higher PCIe lane count, DDR4 compatibility, and desktop socket form factor.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 386H is in a different class entirely, leading by 36.3% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by 56.4% in PassMark multithread. For single-threaded workloads, the lead narrows but still favors the Core Ultra 9 386H by roughly 10% in both Cinebench R23 and PassMark. The benchmark data offers no scenario where the Core i3-14100F comes out ahead. Users who need a performance-oriented processor should choose the Core Ultra 9 386H. Users who need a desktop-specific part with ECC support and a lower TDP may still consider the Core i3-14100F, but they will be accepting a substantial performance deficit in every measured workload.