Intel Core i9-13950HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core i9-13950HX wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H takes 6. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The biggest gap appears in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i9-13950HX scores 4529 against 3223 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 40.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a similar pattern: 28681 versus 20547, a 39.6% lead. The PassMark integer math test delivers the widest margin of all, with the i9-13950HX at 147091 versus 87284, a 68.5% difference. Data compression also favors the older chip heavily, 510258 versus 352365, a 44.8% gap.

The i9-13950HX also leads in Cinebench R20 multicore, 14462 versus 12820, a 12.8% margin. In random string sorting, it posts 57274 against 42135, a 35.9% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 41614 versus 35399, a 17.6% lead. Data encryption goes to the i9-13950HX at 30805 versus 27150, a 13.5% edge. Extended instructions are close, 29779 versus 29138, a 2.2% win for the i9-13950HX. Even in Cinebench R23 singlecore, the i9-13950HX edges ahead, 2096 versus 2071.5, a 1.2% margin.

The Ultra 9 386H fights back in single-threaded and specific math tests. PassMark single thread shows 4218 versus 3899, a 7.6% win for the newer part. Cinebench R15 singlecore also goes to the Ultra 9 386H, 303.5 versus 297, a 2.1% margin. The find prime numbers test delivers its best result: 341 versus 203, a 40.5% advantage. Physics simulation favors the Ultra 9 386H at 3028 versus 2668, an 11.9% lead. Floating point math is a narrow victory for the Ultra 9 386H, 108527 versus 105553, a 2.7% edge.

Looking at the broader database context, both chips sit at the 88th percentile against all CPUs. The i9-13950HX has an average benchmark score of 44342, while the Ultra 9 386H averages 43210. The nearest rivals for the i9-13950HX include the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 44309 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H at 44466 (0.3% ahead). For the Ultra 9 386H, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits 0.3% ahead at 43326, and the Intel Core i9-12900 is 0.7% behind at 42906.

The Verdict

The data points to two different usage profiles. The Intel Core i9-13950HX is the clear choice for heavily parallel workloads. Its 40.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore and 39.6% margin in R23 multicore indicate substantial rendering and encoding headroom. The 68.5% advantage in integer math suggests strong performance in computation-heavy applications that scale across cores. For users running video exports, 3D rendering, or scientific simulations, the recorded data favors the i9-13950HX decisively.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H appeals to a different set of priorities. Its 7.6% lead in PassMark single thread and 2.1% edge in Cinebench R15 singlecore point to stronger lightly-threaded responsiveness. The 40.5% win in find prime numbers and 11.9% advantage in physics simulation indicate architectural efficiency in specific workloads. The 2.7% margin in floating point math shows it handles numeric compute competitively. Users who prioritize snappy everyday interaction, certain scientific workloads, or physics-based calculations may prefer the Ultra 9 386H.

The 17.6% gap in PassMark multithread and the 44.8% difference in data compression reinforce the i9-13950HX as the productivity powerhouse. But the Ultra 9 386H counters with better results in half a dozen tests, including all three single-thread variations where it wins two and loses the third by just 1.2%. The verdict depends on whether the workload is throughput-bound or latency-bound. The i9-13950HX dominates the former; the Ultra 9 386H excels in select portions of the latter.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The i9-13950HX uses Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-HX variant. The Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake, the Panther Lake-H version. The process node tells a story of two generations: the i9-13950HX is built on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The i9-13950HX offers 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 9 386H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. This explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap, as the i9-13950HX has 33% more cores and exactly double the thread count.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i9-13950HX has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache is larger on the newer chip, but the total shared cache is half the size.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i9-13950HX carries UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 386H features Intel Xe3 Graphics. Memory support also differs: the i9-13950HX supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The newer chip records a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s; the older part has no recorded bandwidth figure.

The i9-13950HX supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 9 386H does not. PCIe connectivity also varies: the i9-13950HX offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The i9-13950HX has an unlocked multiplier, the Ultra 9 386H does not.

Specification Differences

The socket differs between the two: the i9-13950HX uses Intel BGA 1964, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. Base clocks are close, with the i9-13950HX at 2.20 GHz and the Ultra 9 386H at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks favor the i9-13950HX at 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz for the Ultra 9 386H.

Thermal design power shows a major split. The i9-13950HX has a 55 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H draws 25 W. This more than 2x difference in power envelope explains why the older chip can sustain higher clocks and feed more cores. The trade-off is efficiency, which the Ultra 9 386H likely addresses with its smaller process node.

The die size is recorded only for the i9-13950HX at 257 mm². The Ultra 9 386H has no die size figure in the database. Release dates also differ: the i9-13950HX launched on January 3, 2023, while the Ultra 9 386H launched on January 4, 2026. The i9-13950HX carries a launch MSRP of $590; the Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch price.

Part numbers distinguish the units: SRMEB for the i9-13950HX and SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra 9 386H. Both are listed as active production parts in the mobile segment. The i9-13950HX belongs to the Core 13th Gen series, while the Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i9-13950HX wins all three multicore tests. It leads by 40.5% in Cinebench R15 (4529 versus 3223), 12.8% in R20 (14462 versus 12820), and 39.6% in R23 (28681 versus 20547).

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H win any single-threaded tests?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark single thread with 4218 versus 3899, a 7.6% margin, and Cinebench R15 singlecore with 303.5 versus 297, a 2.1% edge. The i9-13950HX takes Cinebench R23 singlecore by 1.2% (2096 versus 2071.5).

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The biggest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the i9-13950HX scores 147091 against 87284, a 68.5% advantage. The largest win for the Ultra 9 386H is in PassMark find prime numbers, 341 versus 203, a 40.5% lead.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The i9-13950HX has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This gives the i9-13950HX double the thread count.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The i9-13950HX has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly half.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The i9-13950HX has a TDP of 55 W. The Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 W. The i9-13950HX also has a higher boost clock at 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.