Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel. The Ultra 5 245 is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor using the newer Panther Lake architecture. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, yet the nature of the victories and the processor specifications reveal that each is optimized for a different environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 winning 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The most dramatic divergence occurs in the Cinebench R23 tests. In the single-core test, the Ultra 5 245 scores 4648 against the Ultra 9 386H's 2071.5, a 124.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset. The multi-core R23 result shows a 60.2% lead for the desktop chip, with scores of 32924 and 20547 respectively. These results indicate a substantial performance gulf in sustained rendering workloads.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 tests show a tighter but still consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 245 scores 3318 versus 3223, a 2.9% win. The single-core R15 test shows a 54.2% lead (468 vs 303.5). In R20, the multi-core margin is 7.9% (13828 vs 12820), and the single-core margin is also 7.9% (1952 vs 1809). The R23 results, particularly the 124.4% single-core gap, suggest that the newer Panther Lake design in the Ultra 9 386H does not translate to higher single-threaded throughput in this test.

The Passmark suite reinforces the Ultra 5 245's dominance in most compute tasks. Data compression shows a 13.8% lead (400942 vs 352365). Data encryption is 11.4% faster (30236 vs 27150). Extended instructions score 33304 against 29138, a 14.3% margin. Floating point math shows an 11.1% advantage (120548 vs 108527). Integer math is closer at 4.5% (91187 vs 87284). Random string sorting sees a 16.6% lead (49140 vs 42135). The multithread score favors the desktop chip by 9.3% (38706 vs 35399). Single-thread performance is also ahead, with a 4.2% margin (4394 vs 4218).

The Ultra 9 386H claims a single victory in the Passmark physics test. It scores 3028 against the Ultra 5 245's 2569, a 15.2% margin. This is the only test where the mobile processor outperforms the desktop part. This result may reflect specific instruction handling or memory latency characteristics in the physics simulation workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average score of 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile.

Q: How does the Ultra 5 245 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 5 245 sits within 0.8% of its nearest competitors. It is 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G, 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H, and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600K.

Q: How does the Ultra 9 386H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 9 386H is 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900, and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900KF.

Q: What is the difference in the multi-core Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 60.2% higher than the Ultra 9 386H's score of 20547.

Q: In which benchmark does the Ultra 9 386H win?

A: The Ultra 9 386H wins the Passmark physics benchmark with a score of 3028, which is 15.2% higher than the Ultra 5 245's score of 2569.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports 102.4 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is the superior processor for raw compute performance across almost every measured workload. Its 60.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 124.4% lead in single-core make it the clear choice for rendering, content creation, and single-threaded applications. The 16 out of 17 benchmark wins, combined with a 90th percentile ranking, confirm its position as a high-performance desktop part. The Ultra 9 386H, despite being a higher-tier model name, delivers lower scores in the same tests. Its 88th percentile ranking and an average score that is 5791 points lower place it in a different performance class. The single Passmark physics win (15.2%) does not offset the consistent losses elsewhere. For users prioritizing execution speed in CPU-intensive tasks, the Ultra 5 245 is the better-performing chip according to the recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core configuration, clock speeds, power, and platform. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock of the Ultra 5 245 is 3.50 GHz, which is higher than the Ultra 9 386H's 2.10 GHz. The boost clock also favors the desktop chip: 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The thermal design power differs significantly. The Ultra 5 245 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts. The socket type is different: the Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 9 386H does not. The PCIe lane count also differs, with the Ultra 5 245 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) versus the Ultra 9 386H's Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 5 245 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The memory support is broader on the mobile chip, which supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the desktop chip supports only DDR5. The market segment for the Ultra 5 245 is desktop, and for the Ultra 9 386H it is mobile. The release dates differ: the Ultra 5 245 launched on 2025-01-06, and the Ultra 9 386H launched on 2026-01-04. The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 245 is $270; the Ultra 9 386H has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences are substantial. The Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Ultra 5 245 is manufactured by TSMC, while the Ultra 9 386H is manufactured by Intel. The transistor count and die size are recorded for the Ultra 5 245 at 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm²; these figures are not recorded for the Ultra 9 386H. The cache hierarchy differs in the L2 and L3 capacities. The Ultra 5 245 has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. The Ultra 9 386H also has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio with 16 cores and 16 threads. The higher core count of the Ultra 9 386H does not result in a performance advantage in the benchmark data, which suggests the clock speed and cache configuration of the Ultra 5 245 are more impactful in the recorded tests.