Intel Core i9-14900F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall win for the Intel Core i9-14900F, which takes 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score for the i9-14900F is 60008, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43210 and sits in the 88th percentile. The i9-14900F's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (average score 60099, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX (average score 60104, delta -0.2%), indicating that its overall performance level is comparable to those high-end mobile parts. The Core Ultra 9 386H, by contrast, is nearest to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (average score 43326, delta -0.3%) and the Intel Core i9-12900 (average score 42906, delta 0.7%).

The largest single-core advantage for the i9-14900F appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5583 against the Ultra 9 386H's 2071.5, a delta of 169.5%. The 14900F also leads Cinebench R15 single-core by 85.2% (562 versus 303.5) and Cinebench R20 single-core by 29.6% (2344 versus 1809). In multi-core workloads, the i9-14900F's Cinebench R23 score of 39551 is 92.5% higher than the Ultra 9 386H's 20547. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 29.6% advantage (16611 versus 12820), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 23.7% advantage (3986 versus 3223).

PassMark integer math is another major separation point: the i9-14900F scores 177066 versus 87284, a 102.9% lead. Data compression also favors the desktop part by 60.1% (564207 versus 352365), and random string sorting by 51.2% (63728 versus 42135). The i9-14900F leads PassMark multithread by 31.5% (46532 versus 35399), data encryption by 27.6% (34644 versus 27150), and floating point math by 10.2% (119550 versus 108527).

The Core Ultra 9 386H wins two tests. It scores 341 in PassMark find prime numbers versus 209 for the i9-14900F, a delta of -38.7% (meaning the 386H is 38.7% ahead in that direction). It also wins PassMark physics with 3028 versus 2899, a 4.3% advantage. In single-thread PassMark, the i9-14900F leads by 6.8% (4506 versus 4218), and in extended instructions it leads by 6.7% (31084 versus 29138).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different platforms. The Intel Core i9-14900F is a Raptor Lake Refresh part, codename Raptor Lake-R, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². It belongs to the Core 14th Gen series and the Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Core Ultra 9 386H is a Panther Lake part, from the Core Ultra Series 3, fabricated on a 3 nm process node, and belongs to the Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) generation.

Core counts differ substantially. The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900F therefore provides twice the thread count of the Ultra 9 386H, which explains its strong multi-threaded benchmark results. Cache configurations also differ. The i9-14900F uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has a higher per-core L1 and L2 allocation, but the i9-14900F has double the shared L3 capacity.

Clock speeds favor the i9-14900F. It has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Ultra 9 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 14900F boosts nearly a full gigahertz higher. Thermal design power is radically different: the i9-14900F is rated at 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H is rated at 25 W TDP. The Ultra 9 386H uses less than half the power budget, which aligns with its mobile BGA 2540 socket, while the i9-14900F uses the desktop Intel Socket 1700.

Memory support differs as well. The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and it supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it does not support ECC memory. The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, with the database listing "N/A" for its iGPU. The Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

PCIe lanes also differ. The i9-14900F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The i9-14900F uses an unlocked multiplier? No: the multiplierUnlocked field is false for both parts. The production status is Active for both, with release dates of 2024-01-07 for the i9-14900F and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 9 386H.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the platform split clear. The Intel Core i9-14900F is a desktop processor for users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput and high single-core performance. Its 24 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 5.80 GHz boost clock, deliver Cinebench R23 multi-core scores of 39551 and single-core scores of 5583. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including large margins in integer math, data compression, and multithread workloads. The 14900F's 92nd percentile ranking and average score of 60008 place it in the upper tier of the database.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, designed for a different set of constraints. Its 16 cores and 16 threads produce lower multi-threaded scores, but it wins PassMark find prime numbers (341 versus 209) and PassMark physics (3028 versus 2899). It also includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, which the 14900F lacks. The 386H's memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and support for LPDDR5X indicate a focus on mobile efficiency and compact systems.

For a desktop workstation or high-performance gaming build, the i9-14900F is the clear choice from the data. It is roughly 92.5% faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 102.9% faster in integer math, and 60.1% faster in data compression. For a mobile laptop or a low-power system, the Ultra 9 386H offers competitive single-thread performance (4218 in PassMark single thread versus 4506, only 6.8% behind) while consuming 25 W TDP versus 65 W, and it provides integrated graphics. The 386H's two wins in prime number finding and physics show that it holds advantages in specific workloads despite its lower overall average score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F scores 39551 versus 20547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 92.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 386H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark find prime numbers (341 versus 209, a 38.7% advantage) and PassMark physics (3028 versus 2899, a 4.3% advantage).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i9-14900F has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The i9-14900F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), while the Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Q: How do their memory support options differ?

A: The i9-14900F supports DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC memory. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X without ECC, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The i9-14900F has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900F wins in multi-threaded productivity tasks. Cinebench R23 multi-core favors it by 92.5%, PassMark multithread by 31.5%, and PassMark integer math by 102.9%. Data compression (60.1% lead) and random string sorting (51.2% lead) indicate an advantage in file archiving and sorting workloads. Data encryption also favors the 14900F by 27.6%, making it the stronger choice for encryption-heavy tasks. In single-core performance, the 14900F leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 169.5% and Cinebench R15 single-core by 85.2%, though the PassMark single-thread gap is smaller at 6.8%.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in prime number calculations, scoring 341 versus 209, a 38.7% lead. It also wins PassMark physics with 3028 versus 2899, a 4.3% advantage. These wins suggest the 386H has a per-core efficiency advantage in specific math and physics simulations, even though its overall throughput is lower. The 386H also offers integrated graphics and a 25 W TDP, making it suitable for compact mobile systems where the i9-14900F's desktop socket and lack of iGPU would be prohibitive.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900F | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

|----------------|----------------------|--------------------------|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $524 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRN3W | SA4R5Q9EH |