Intel Core i9-14900HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison
Intel Core i9-14900HX
Core Ultra 9 386H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i9-14900HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark split is decisive but not absolute. The Intel Core i9-14900HX wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H claims 4. The i9-14900HX dominates in multi-threaded productivity and data-heavy workloads, while the Ultra 9 386H shows specific strengths in single-thread execution, prime number calculation, and physics simulation.
For multi-core rendering, the i9-14900HX is the clear leader. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 30055 against 20547, a 46.3% advantage. The gap widens further in PassMark integer math, where the i9-14900HX delivers 157375 versus 87284, an 80.3% lead. Data compression also favors the i9-14900HX heavily: 539965 versus 352365, a 53.2% difference. These results indicate the i9-14900HX is built for sustained parallel workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, and database processing.
The Ultra 9 386H wins in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 341 against 193, a 43.4% advantage. It also takes PassMark physics at 3028 versus 2638, a 12.9% lead. In single-thread PassMark, the Ultra 9 386H edges ahead at 4218 versus 4175, a marginal 1% difference. These wins suggest the Ultra 9 386H has a more efficient per-core design for certain integer-heavy and physics-oriented tasks, despite having fewer cores.
The i9-14900HX also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.3% and R20 single-core by 21.8%, showing that its higher boost clock of 5.80 GHz translates into measurable single-thread superiority in Cinebench workloads. However, the Ultra 9 386H counters in PassMark single-thread, indicating workload-specific behavior rather than a universal single-core advantage.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design generations. The i9-14900HX uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is significant: the 3 nm node allows the Ultra 9 386H to pack more cache per core, with 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, versus 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core for the i9-14900HX.
Core counts diverge sharply. The i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900HX therefore supports hyper-threading, doubling its thread count, whereas the Ultra 9 386H does not. This explains the i9-14900HX's massive multi-core leads: it has 50% more cores and twice the thread count.
Cache allocation also differs. The i9-14900HX has 36 MB shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB shared L3. The i9-14900HX's larger L3 helps in workloads with large working sets, while the Ultra 9 386H's larger per-core L1 and L2 may benefit latency-sensitive single-thread tasks. The Ultra 9 386H also supports a higher memory bandwidth rating of 115.2 GB/s, while the i9-14900HX has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database.
Memory support differs: the i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The i9-14900HX supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 9 386H does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the i9-14900HX has 16 Gen 5 lanes, while the Ultra 9 386H has 12 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i9-14900HX uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.
Thermal design power separates the two clearly. The i9-14900HX has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The i9-14900HX also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 386H is locked. Sockets differ: the i9-14900HX uses Intel BGA 1964, the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. The i9-14900HX has a die size of 257 mm², while the Ultra 9 386H has no recorded die size.
The Verdict
The data points to the i9-14900HX as the stronger processor for multi-threaded performance across nearly all tested categories. Its 46.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 80.3% lead in PassMark integer math are decisive. The i9-14900HX also holds a 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus 88th for the Ultra 9 386H. Its average benchmark score of 56004 exceeds the Ultra 9 386H's 43210 by a substantial margin.
The Ultra 9 386H offers specific advantages in efficiency and certain single-thread tasks. Its 25-watt TDP versus 55 watts for the i9-14900HX suggests it can sustain performance in thermally constrained chassis. Its wins in prime number calculation and physics simulation, plus a marginal single-thread PassMark victory, indicate a design that handles certain integer and physics workloads more efficiently per core.
For users prioritizing raw multi-core throughput, rendering, compression, and encryption, the i9-14900HX is the data-backed choice. For workloads dominated by prime number finding or physics calculations, the Ultra 9 386H delivers better scores. The i9-14900HX also wins in Cinebench single-core tests, so its overall single-thread capability is not inferior despite the Ultra 9 386H's PassMark single-thread edge.
The i9-14900HX's unlocked multiplier and ECC support add flexibility for overclocking and error-checking environments. The Ultra 9 386H's newer 3 nm process and larger per-core cache suggest a modern efficiency-focused design, but the benchmark results do not show it overcoming the i9-14900HX's core and thread advantage in most tests.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900HX also supports hyper-threading, doubling its thread count.
Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?
A: The i9-14900HX wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.3% and R20 single-core by 21.8%. The Ultra 9 386H wins PassMark single-thread by 1%, scoring 4218 versus 4175.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The i9-14900HX has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The i9-14900HX also has a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.
Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?
A: The i9-14900HX supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 9 386H does not. Memory support also differs: the i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.
Q: What is the thermal design power difference?
A: The i9-14900HX has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. This indicates the Ultra 9 386H is designed for lower power consumption.
Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?
A: The i9-14900HX scores 30055 versus 20547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 46.3% advantage. This is the largest multi-core Cinebench gap in the recorded data.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest win for the i9-14900HX appears in PassMark integer math, with a score of 157375 against 87284, an 80.3% delta. This reflects the i9-14900HX's 24 cores and 32 threads handling integer operations in parallel. The second-largest gap is in PassMark data compression at 53.2%, where the i9-14900HX scores 539965 versus 352365. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 46.3% lead, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 41.9% lead (4574 versus 3223). PassMark random string sorting also favors the i9-14900HX by 44.4% (60861 versus 42135).
The i9-14900HX also wins PassMark multithread by 23.7% (43778 versus 35399), Cinebench R20 multi-core by 21.8% (15616 versus 12820), and the same 21.8% delta in Cinebench R20 single-core (2204 versus 1809). PassMark data encryption goes to the i9-14900HX by 20.1% (32619 versus 27150), and PassMark extended instructions by 7.2% (31247 versus 29138). PassMark floating point math is close, with the i9-14900HX ahead by 3.5% (112273 versus 108527). Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 5.3% i9-14900HX lead (2181.5 versus 2071.5), and Cinebench R15 single-core a 2.3% lead (310.5 versus 303.5).
The Ultra 9 386H's biggest win is PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 341 versus 193, a 43.4% advantage. This is the only test where the Ultra 9 386H leads by more than 13%. PassMark physics goes to the Ultra 9 386H by 12.9% (3028 versus 2638). PassMark single-thread shows a 1% edge for the Ultra 9 386H (4218 versus 4175), and the same result appears in the duplicate PassMark singlethread test.
Specification Differences
The i9-14900HX uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Core counts differ: 24 cores and 32 threads for the i9-14900HX, versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra 9 386H. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the i9-14900HX and 2.10 GHz for the Ultra 9 386H. Boost clocks are 5.80 GHz and 4.90 GHz, respectively.
Cache configurations differ substantially. The i9-14900HX has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support: the i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5, the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 386H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the i9-14900HX has no recorded bandwidth figure.
ECC memory is supported on the i9-14900HX but not on the Ultra 9 386H. PCIe lanes: 16 Gen 5 lanes for the i9-14900HX, 12 Gen 5 lanes for the Ultra 9 386H. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 for the i9-14900HX, Intel Xe3 Graphics for the Ultra 9 386H. TDP: 55 watts versus 25 watts. The multiplier is unlocked on the i9-14900HX and locked on the Ultra 9 386H. Sockets: Intel BGA 1964 versus Intel BGA 2540. Die size: 257 mm² for the i9-14900HX, no recorded value for the Ultra 9 386H. Release dates: 2024-01-07 for the i9-14900HX, 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 9 386H.