Intel Core Ultra 5 235 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between two very different Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins the majority of head-to-head tests, taking 11 of 17 comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins 6. However, the nature of those wins matters more than the count. The Core Ultra 9 386H dominates the Cinebench rendering suite with massive multicore margins, while the Core Ultra 5 235 claims most PassMark workloads, including all single-threaded tests.

For desktop users with an Intel Socket 1851 platform, the Core Ultra 5 235 is the sensible choice based on the recorded data. It holds a 0.7% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23, a 7.1% lead in PassMark single-thread, and it wins every PassMark workload except physics. Its average benchmark score of 46062 places it at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 4364P.

For mobile users targeting the Intel BGA 2540 platform, the Core Ultra 9 386H delivers a fundamentally different performance profile. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20547 is 28.1% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 235, and its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 12820 is 51.6% higher. The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins PassMark physics by 15.1%, a result that suggests stronger computational physics throughput. Its 88th percentile ranking trails the Core Ultra 5 235 by only one percentile point.

The decision hinges on workload type. Rendering and heavily threaded Cinebench tasks strongly favor the Core Ultra 9 386H. General computing, data compression, encryption, and single-thread responsiveness favor the Core Ultra 5 235. The Core Ultra 5 235 also posts a 6.8% lead in PassMark multithread, which complicates the narrative that the Core Ultra 9 386H is universally faster in parallel work.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel. Both belong to different Core Ultra Series generations: Series 2 for the 235 and Series 3 for the 386H. The Core Ultra 5 235 is codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and the Core Ultra 9 386H is codenamed Panther Lake.

Core counts differ. The Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, as each core corresponds to exactly one thread in both cases.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The Core Ultra 5 235 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 386H also provides 192 KB of L1 per core but reduces L2 to 2.5 MB per core and L3 to 18 MB shared. The Core Ultra 5 235 therefore carries 6 MB more shared L3 cache and larger per-core L2.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while the Core Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop part with a 65 TDP and Intel Socket 1851, while the Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile part with a 25 TDP and Intel BGA 2540. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes; the Core Ultra 9 386H also supports PCIe Gen 5 but with only 12 CPU lanes. Both use dual-channel memory. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

The Core Ultra 5 235 launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $257. The Core Ultra 9 386H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margins belong to the Core Ultra 9 386H in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 3223 against 1488 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a 53.8% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the scores are 12820 against 6202, a 51.6% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 20547 against 14769, a 28.1% lead. The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins Cinebench R15 singlecore with 303.5 against 210, a 30.8% margin, and Cinebench R20 singlecore with 1809 against 875, a 51.6% margin.

The Core Ultra 5 235 takes Cinebench R23 singlecore by a narrow 0.7%, scoring 2085 against 2071.5. That result indicates near parity in modern single-thread rendering performance, despite the Core Ultra 9 386H's large wins in older Cinebench versions.

In the PassMark suite, the Core Ultra 5 235 wins 10 of 11 workloads. The largest margin is random string sorting, where the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 48980 against 42135, a 16.2% lead. Extended instructions shows 32752 against 29138, a 12.4% advantage. Data compression delivers 390711 against 352365, a 10.9% lead. Find prime numbers shows 371 against 341, an 8.8% margin. Floating point math delivers 117951 against 108527, an 8.7% edge. Data encryption shows 29293 against 27150, a 7.9% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4516 against 4218, a 7.1% advantage. PassMark multithread delivers 37816 against 35399, a 6.8% lead. Integer math shows 87948 against 87284, a narrow 0.8% margin.

The Core Ultra 9 386H claims only PassMark physics among the PassMark tests, scoring 3028 against 2570, a 15.1% advantage. That physics win is notable because it is the sole PassMark workload where the Core Ultra 9 386H outperforms, and it does so by a substantial margin.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall balance. The Core Ultra 5 235 averages 46062 across all benchmarks, while the Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43210. The Core Ultra 5 235 sits at the 89th percentile versus 88th for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 235 | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | 20 (CPU only) | 12 (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $257 | Not recorded |

The Core Ultra 5 235 has a 1.30 GHz higher base clock and a 0.10 GHz higher boost clock. The Core Ultra 9 386H has a 40 W lower TDP, which is expected given its mobile segment. The Core Ultra 5 235 has 6 MB more L3 cache and 0.5 MB more L2 per core. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 12.8 GB/s higher memory bandwidth and supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has an average benchmark score of 46062, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 43210. The Core Ultra 5 235 also ranks at the 89th percentile versus the 88th percentile for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547 in Cinebench R23 multicore against 14769 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, a 28.1% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 235 win any Cinebench test?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 wins Cinebench R23 singlecore by a 0.7% margin, scoring 2085 against 2071.5 for the Core Ultra 9 386H.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference in PassMark?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 scores 4516 in PassMark single-thread against 4218 for the Core Ultra 9 386H, a 7.1% lead for the Core Ultra 5 235.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 102.4 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 386H also supports LPDDR5X memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in all Cinebench rendering benchmarks except Cinebench R23 singlecore. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score is 53.8% higher, its Cinebench R20 multicore score is 51.6% higher, and its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 28.1% higher. The Core Ultra 9 386H also wins PassMark physics by 15.1%. These results indicate that the mobile processor is the stronger choice for rendering workloads and physics simulation tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins every other head-to-head test. It leads in PassMark data compression by 10.9%, data encryption by 7.9%, extended instructions by 12.4%, find prime numbers by 8.8%, floating point math by 8.7%, integer math by 0.8%, multithread by 6.8%, random string sorting by 16.2%, and single-thread by 7.1%. It also wins Cinebench R23 singlecore by 0.7%. The data shows the Core Ultra 5 235 delivers superior general-purpose computing performance, particularly in memory-intensive and string-handling tasks.

The Core Ultra 5 235 achieves a higher average benchmark score of 46062 versus 43210, and it wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Core Ultra 9 386H wins 6 tests, but those wins are concentrated in the Cinebench suite where the margins are the largest of any comparison. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear winner. For users prioritizing broad PassMark workloads, single-thread speed, and overall average score, the Core Ultra 5 235 is the stronger option.