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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. There are no benchmark tests where the mobile chip comes out ahead. The margin varies substantially by workload, from a narrow 1.8% lead in PassMark physics to a 30.8% advantage in random string sorting.

Multi-core rendering workloads show the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 245K scores 25,066 against 20,547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 22% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 15,368 versus 12,820, a 19.9% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core delivers 3,850 versus 3,223, a 19.5% margin. The desktop part consistently holds a roughly one-fifth performance advantage in threaded rendering.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the desktop chip. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,132 versus 2,071.5, a modest 2.9% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core gives 322 versus 303.5, a 6.1% margin. The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R20, where the Ultra 5 245K posts 2,169 against 1,809, a 19.9% difference. PassMark single-thread results show 4,714 versus 4,218, an 11.8% lead.

PassMark workloads reveal where the desktop part stretches its advantage. Data compression shows 458,817 versus 352,365, a 30.2% lead. Random string sorting gives 55,098 versus 42,135, the largest margin at 30.8%. Extended instructions score 37,617 versus 29,138, a 29.1% gap. Data encryption delivers 33,286 versus 27,150, a 22.6% advantage. Floating-point math runs 130,678 versus 108,527, a 20.4% lead. Find prime numbers shows 414 versus 341, a 21.4% margin. Integer math scores 98,524 versus 87,284, a 12.9% gap. PassMark multithread totals 43,047 versus 35,399, a 21.6% difference.

The narrowest win outside physics is Cinebench R23 single-core at 2.9%, which indicates the Ultra 9 386H's architecture is competitive in lightly threaded tasks despite the large multi-core deficit. The average benchmark score tells the overall story: the Ultra 5 245K averages 54,053 against 43,210 for the Ultra 9 386H. The desktop part ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the mobile part sits at the 88th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments. The Ultra 5 245K belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is a desktop part. The Ultra 9 386H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, uses Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and is a mobile part.

Both chips are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Ultra 5 245K is fabricated by TSMC, while the Ultra 9 386H is fabricated by Intel. The desktop part lists 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the mobile chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Core counts differ despite the numbering. The Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without hyperthreading. The mobile part has two more physical cores, yet it loses every multi-core benchmark, indicating that clock speed and power delivery dominate the comparison.

Clock speeds heavily favor the desktop part. The Ultra 5 245K runs a 4.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 9 386H runs a 2.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.90 GHz. The base clock difference is substantial at 2.10 GHz, which explains the large multi-core gaps. The boost clocks are closer, with only 0.30 GHz separating them.

Cache configurations differ. Both use 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Ultra 5 245K versus 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 9 386H. Shared L3 cache totals 24 MB on the desktop part versus 18 MB on the mobile part. Neither chip uses 3D V-Cache.

Memory support shows a split. The Ultra 5 245K supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The mobile part has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the desktop part. The desktop chip supports ECC memory, while the mobile chip does not.

PCIe lanes differ. The Ultra 5 245K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the desktop part uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the mobile part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The socket and form factor are fundamentally different. The Ultra 5 245K uses Intel Socket 1851 and has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540 and has a locked multiplier. The desktop part has a 125 W TDP, while the mobile part has a 25 W TDP. This 100 W difference in thermal design power is the most significant architectural factor behind the performance gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 5 245K wins in every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is less about performance and more about platform constraints. The desktop part dominates multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, floating-point math, integer math, prime number finding, random string sorting, and multithreaded PassMark tests. For content creation, compilation, scientific computing, or any workload that scales across cores, the desktop chip is the clear choice.

The Ultra 9 386H, despite losing all 17 comparisons, still offers competitive single-core performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is only 2.9%, and in Cinebench R15 single-core it is 6.1%. For lightly threaded tasks such as everyday responsiveness, office work, or light coding, the mobile chip delivers performance close to the desktop part while consuming far less power. The 25 W TDP versus 125 W TDP makes the Ultra 9 386H suitable for laptops where power efficiency and heat dissipation matter more than raw throughput.

The Ultra 9 386H also supports LPDDR5X memory, which the desktop part lacks. This gives the mobile chip flexibility in system design, particularly for thin-and-light notebooks that rely on soldered low-power memory. The higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s partially compensates for the lower core clocks in memory-sensitive workloads.

The Ultra 5 245K, with its unlocked multiplier and desktop socket, is the better fit for overclocking, high-performance desktops, and systems where power draw is not a constraint. The Ultra 9 386H is the better fit for mobile workstations and laptops that need strong multi-core performance within a tight power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. Despite having two fewer cores, the desktop part wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 5 245K in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 5 245K scores 25,066 versus 20,547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 22% advantage. This is the largest Cinebench multi-core gap between the two.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Ultra 5 245K has a 125 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP. The 100 W difference reflects their desktop versus mobile positioning.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 386H support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory support is listed as false for the Ultra 9 386H. The Ultra 5 245K supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the boost clock for each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 245K boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra 9 386H boosts to 4.90 GHz. The base clocks are 4.20 GHz and 2.10 GHz, respectively.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 5 245K has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop part also has 3 MB of L2 per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the mobile part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. With 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, an average benchmark score of 54,053 versus 43,210, and a 91st percentile ranking versus 88th, the desktop part holds a decisive performance advantage. The largest margins come in memory-intensive and multi-threaded workloads, where the desktop chip leads by 22% to 30.8%.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the benchmark results. The 25 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its mobile BGA 2540 socket suits laptop integration. The support for LPDDR5X memory and higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s also gives it platform flexibility. For users building a desktop system where performance is the priority, the Ultra 5 245K is the obvious pick. For users who need a capable mobile processor in a laptop, the Ultra 9 386H serves that purpose, but the recorded data shows it cannot match the desktop part in raw throughput.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. The Ultra 5 245K sits within 0.7% of the Intel Xeon 6505P and 0.8% of the Intel Core i7-14700F, and it trails the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D by 1.3%. The Ultra 9 386H sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, while leading the Intel Core i9-12900 by 0.7% and the i9-12900KF by 0.9%. These proximity scores show that each chip competes in its own performance class, and the desktop class is simply higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245K | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 14 | 16 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| 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 Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $319 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRQCT | SA4R5Q9EH |