Intel Core i9-14900HX vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900HX and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H occupy distinct performance positions, with the benchmark data showing a clear split between heavy multi-threaded workloads and lighter, single-threaded or specialized tasks. The i9-14900HX wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Ultra X9 388H takes 6. That division tells a story about core counts versus architectural efficiency.

The i9-14900HX dominates in multi-core rendering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 30055 against 18911 for the Ultra X9 388H, a 58.9% advantage. The delta is even larger in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i9-14900HX posts 4574 versus 2955, a 54.8% lead. Integer math shows the biggest gap of any test: the i9-14900HX scores 157375, which is 73.2% ahead of the Ultra X9 388H's 90882. Data compression also favors the i9-14900HX by a wide margin, 539965 versus 361763, a 49.3% difference. Random string sorting goes to the i9-14900HX as well, 60861 to 44010, a 38.3% edge. The i9-14900HX also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 19.2%, PassMark multi-thread by 18.9%, data encryption by 14.5%, and extended instructions by 4.4%.

The Ultra X9 388H takes the single-core crown in most tests, though the margins are often narrow. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4280 versus 4175, a 2.5% win. Cinebench R23 single-core goes to the Ultra X9 388H by a slim 0.9% margin, 2200.5 to 2181.5. The largest single-test win for the Ultra X9 388H comes in prime number finding, where it scores 358 against 193, a 46.1% advantage. It also wins PassMark physics by 18.2% (3226 to 2638) and floating point math by a hair, 112550 to 112273, a 0.2% margin.

The pattern is consistent: the i9-14900HX is built for throughput-heavy workloads that scale with core count, while the Ultra X9 388H shows strength in tasks that favor per-core efficiency, specific instruction patterns, or lower latency. The prime number test is particularly interesting because it often rewards higher clock speeds and efficient integer pipelines, and the Ultra X9 388H's 5.10 GHz boost clock, while lower than the i9-14900HX's 5.80 GHz, still delivers a commanding result there.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras and manufacturing nodes. The i9-14900HX uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-HX, built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its die size is 257 mm². The Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process, also by Intel. No die size is recorded for the Panther Lake part.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The i9-14900HX supports simultaneous multithreading, the Ultra X9 388H does not. That explains much of the multi-core performance gap: the i9-14900HX has 50% more cores and twice the thread count.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i9-14900HX has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. So the Ultra X9 388H has more per-core cache, but the i9-14900HX has double the total L3.

Memory support is another major split. The i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration and has ECC memory capability. The Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and does not support ECC. The i9-14900HX has no memory bandwidth figure recorded.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The i9-14900HX offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X9 388H offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are different: the i9-14900HX uses UHD Graphics 770, the Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390. The i9-14900HX has an unlocked multiplier; the Ultra X9 388H does not.

The i9-14900HX uses the Intel BGA 1964 socket, the Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. Release dates are roughly two years apart: the i9-14900HX launched in January 2024, the Ultra X9 388H in January 2026. Both are listed as Active in production, both target the mobile market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the Ultra X9 388H have ECC memory support?

A: No. The i9-14900HX supports ECC memory, but the Ultra X9 388H does not.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The i9-14900HX boosts to 5.80 GHz, while the Ultra X9 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The Ultra X9 388H wins by a narrow 0.9% margin, scoring 2200.5 versus 2181.5 for the i9-14900HX.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare?

A: The i9-14900HX has 36 MB of shared L3, double the 18 MB found on the Ultra X9 388H. Per-core L1 and L2 are larger on the Ultra X9 388H.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The i9-14900HX supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X only, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i9-14900HX | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1964 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 36 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc B390 |

| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |

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

| Part number | SRMXF | SA4QWQ9EK |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-test margin belongs to the i9-14900HX in PassMark integer math, where it scores 157375 versus 90882, a 73.2% lead. That result aligns with the core and thread advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 58.9% gap, with the i9-14900HX scoring 30055 against 18911. Cinebench R15 multi-core is nearly as lopsided at 54.8%, 4574 to 2955. Data compression follows at 49.3%, 539965 to 361763.

The i9-14900HX also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by 19.2% (15616 to 13101), PassMark multi-thread by 18.9% (43778 to 36811), data encryption by 14.5% (32619 to 28490), random string sorting by 38.3% (60861 to 44010), and extended instructions by 4.4% (31247 to 29943). Cinebench R15 single-core is essentially a tie, with the i9-14900HX ahead by just 0.3%, 310.5 to 309.5.

The Ultra X9 388H's biggest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 358 versus 193, a 46.1% advantage. That is a striking reversal given the i9-14900HX's higher boost clock and larger core count. PassMark physics goes to the Ultra X9 388H by 18.2%, 3226 to 2638. Floating point math is nearly identical, with the Ultra X9 388H ahead by 0.2%, 112550 to 112273. PassMark single-thread goes to the Ultra X9 388H by 2.5%, 4280 to 4175, and Cinebench R23 single-core goes to the Ultra X9 388H by 0.9%, 2200.5 to 2181.5.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The i9-14900HX has an average benchmark score of 56004, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra X9 388H has an average score of 44466, placing it in the 88th percentile. The i9-14900HX's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core 7 253PQE (0.2% ahead), AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 (0.5% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (0.5% behind). The Ultra X9 388H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% behind), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% ahead), and AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% ahead).

The recorded data shows that the i9-14900HX is the stronger overall processor for multi-threaded workloads, with a 22.8% higher average benchmark score. The Ultra X9 388H, despite fewer cores and a lower boost clock, manages to win several single-thread and specialized tests, which points to architectural improvements in the Panther Lake design. The 3 nm process node and larger per-core caches appear to offset some of the raw core-count deficit, particularly in tasks that do not scale linearly with thread count. The prime number result, in particular, suggests that the Ultra X9 388H's per-core integer performance is significantly better than the i9-14900HX, even though the i9-14900HX dominates in aggregate integer throughput.