Intel Core i5-110 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Intel Core i5-110 and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H occupy different segments entirely, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gap. The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers substantially higher throughput across every recorded workload, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i5-110 sits at the 50th percentile. The average benchmark score of 44,466 for the Ultra X9 388H versus 0 for the i5-110 (no benchmark records exist for the latter) makes the comparison one-sided, but the architectural and specification differences explain why.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra X9 388H holds a commanding lead in multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,911 reflects 16 cores and 16 threads working in parallel, a configuration that the 6-core, 12-thread Core i5-110 cannot match. The gap is similarly wide in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra X9 388H scores 13,101, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 2,955. These results indicate that the mobile chip delivers roughly three times the multi-core performance of a typical 6-core desktop part from an older generation, based on the core and thread counts recorded in the database.

Single-core performance also favors the Ultra X9 388H, though by a smaller margin. The boost clock of 5.10 GHz on the Ultra X9 388H exceeds the 4.30 GHz boost of the Core i5-110, and the recorded single-thread scores confirm the advantage: 2,200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 1,849 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 309.5 in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Core i5-110 has no recorded single-core benchmarks, so direct numerical comparison is impossible, but the clock speed difference and process node advantage point to the newer chip winning in latency-sensitive tasks.

PassMark results further quantify the Ultra X9 388H strengths. The multi-thread score of 36,811 and single-thread score of 4,280 show balanced capability. Integer math scores 90,882, floating point math scores 112,550, and extended instructions score 29,943. Data compression reaches 361,763, while data encryption hits 28,490. Find prime numbers, a workload sensitive to both clock speed and memory latency, scores 358. Random string sorting scores 44,010, and physics simulation scores 3,226. These numbers collectively place the Ultra X9 388H within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which averages 44,573, and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44,342. It also edges out the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 by 0.4% and the Intel Core i5-13600 by 0.5%. The Core i5-110 has no nearest rivals listed, as no benchmark scores exist for it.

The Core i5-110 cannot claim a single benchmark win in this comparison because its benchmark array is empty. Every measurable workload in the database belongs to the Ultra X9 388H. The wins count stands at 0 for the i5-110 and 0 for the Ultra X9 388H in head-to-head tests, since no paired benchmark records exist, but the standalone scores for the Ultra X9 388H demonstrate its dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-110 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i5-110 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i5-110 uses Intel's 14 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel's 3 nm process.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The Intel Core i5-110 supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory.

Q: How does the Ultra X9 388H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra X9 388H averages 44,466 points, which is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44,342), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44,309), and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600 (44,240).

Q: What is the thermal design power of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-110 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Intel Core i5-110 uses Comet Lake, a 14 nm design from Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake, a 3 nm design also from Intel. The foundry is Intel for both, but the node difference explains much of the efficiency and clock behavior. The 3 nm process allows the Ultra X9 388H to reach a 5.10 GHz boost clock while drawing only 25 watts TDP, whereas the 14 nm Comet Lake chip needs 65 watts to reach 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Core i5-110 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X9 388H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L2 in the Ultra X9 388H, 3 MB versus 256 KB, indicates a design optimized for higher memory-level parallelism, while the larger L3 pool supports its 16-core configuration.

The Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Panther Lake-H generation, a mobile-focused lineup. The Core i5-110 belongs to the Comet Lake generation and targets desktop systems. The market segment distinction is explicit: desktop for the i5-110, mobile for the Ultra X9 388H. The integrated graphics also differ, with the i5-110 using UHD Graphics 630 and the Ultra X9 388H using Arc B390. The Ultra X9 388H supports PCIe Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU, while the i5-110 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The socket differs entirely. The Core i5-110 uses Intel Socket 1200, a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package. The launch MSRP for the Core i5-110 is $200, while the Ultra X9 388H has no recorded launch MSRP.

Core and thread counts differ: 6 cores and 12 threads for the i5-110 versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra X9 388H. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the i5-110 and 2.10 GHz for the Ultra X9 388H, while boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP is 65 watts for the i5-110 and 25 watts for the Ultra X9 388H.

Memory support diverges: DDR4 for the i5-110 versus LPDDR5X for the Ultra X9 388H. Memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s for the i5-110 and 153.6 GB/s for the Ultra X9 388H, a 3.6x advantage for the newer chip. Both use dual-channel memory buses and neither supports ECC memory. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node is 14 nm for the i5-110 and 3 nm for the Ultra X9 388H. Release dates are also different, with the i5-110 releasing in September 2025 and the Ultra X9 388H in January 2026. The part numbers are SA35X for the i5-110 and SA4QWQ9EK for the Ultra X9 388H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins in every recorded workload category. Multi-threaded applications benefit from its 16 cores and 16 threads, as shown by Cinebench R23 multi-core at 18,911 and PassMark multi-thread at 36,811. Single-threaded tasks benefit from its 5.10 GHz boost clock, reflected in Cinebench R23 single-core at 2,200.5 and PassMark single-thread at 4,280. Memory-intensive workloads benefit from 153.6 GB/s of LPDDR5X bandwidth, which supports data compression at 361,763 and random string sorting at 44,010. Encryption and instruction-heavy workloads also favor it, with data encryption at 28,490 and extended instructions at 29,943. The 25 watt TDP makes it suitable for mobile systems where thermal headroom is limited, while still outperforming desktop parts from older generations.

The Core i5-110 has no recorded benchmark scores, so it cannot claim a workload win in the database. Its strengths are structural rather than measured. The 65 watt TDP and Intel Socket 1200 indicate a desktop part designed for standard tower systems with discrete cooling. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU support expansion cards, and the DDR4 memory support aligns with older platform expectations. Its release date in September 2025 and $200 launch MSRP position it as an entry-level desktop processor, but the absence of benchmark data means its performance profile is unverified in this database.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior processor in every measurable dimension. Its 88th percentile ranking, 44,466 average benchmark score, and wins across Cinebench and PassMark suites confirm it as a high-performance mobile chip that rivals desktop-class parts like the Intel Core i9-13950HX and AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D. The 16 cores, 5.10 GHz boost, 18 MB L3 cache, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth give it overwhelming advantages in both threaded and single-core work. The 3 nm process and 25 watt TDP make it efficient enough for mobile use while delivering desktop-level results.

The Intel Core i5-110, with its 6 cores, 4.30 GHz boost, 12 MB L3 cache, and 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, offers no recorded performance data to support a counter-argument. Its Comet Lake architecture, 14 nm node, and 65 watt TDP place it in a legacy desktop role. The socket and memory support suggest compatibility with existing DDR4 platforms, and the $200 launch MSRP reflects an entry-level position, but without benchmark scores, its actual performance cannot be stated from the database. For any user choosing between these two processors based on recorded data, the Core Ultra X9 388H is the only option with verified performance, and that performance is excellent.