Intel Core Ultra 5 245K vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has an average benchmark score of 54053, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 44466. The 245K ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, and the 388H ranks in the 88th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 25066 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 32.5% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's score of 18911. The 245K also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core by 17.3% (15368 vs 13101).

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the 388H wins two recorded tests. It beats the 245K in Cinebench R23 single-core (2200.5 vs 2132, a 3.1% advantage) and in PassMark physics (3226 vs 3081, a 4.5% advantage).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both chips have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The 245K also has a much higher base clock at 4.20 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz for the 388H.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H taking only 2 wins. The 245K's average benchmark score of 54053 places it in the 91st percentile, while the 388H sits at 44466 in the 88th percentile.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the desktop-oriented part. It uses the Arrow Lake architecture, has a 125 W TDP, uses the Intel Socket 1851, and has an unlocked multiplier. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6505P (0.7% behind), the Intel Core i7-14700F (0.8% behind), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (1.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, which sits 1.3% ahead. The 245K's closest competition in the database is tightly packed, with all four nearest rivals within a 2.4 percentage point window.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the mobile part. It uses the Panther Lake architecture, has a 25 W TDP, uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, and has a locked multiplier. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i5-13600 (0.5% behind). The 388H's rival group is also close, spanning a 0.7 percentage point range.

The data indicates that the 245K is the stronger processor for compute-heavy desktop tasks. The 388H, while slower in most metrics, offers a much lower TDP and a different feature set suited to mobile platforms. The 245K's 32.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is substantial, and its wins in PassMark data compression (26.8%), extended instructions (25.6%), and random string sorting (25.2%) reinforce the pattern. The 388H's wins are narrow: 3.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4.5% in PassMark physics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The 245K scores 25066 against the 388H's 18911, a 32.5% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar gap at 30.3%, with the 245K at 3850 and the 388H at 2955.

The PassMark suite provides additional context. The 245K leads in data compression with 458817 points versus 361763, a 26.8% margin. Extended instructions go to the 245K at 37617 versus 29943, a 25.6% gap. Random string sorting favors the 245K by 25.2% (55098 vs 44010). Data encryption shows a 16.8% lead for the 245K (33286 vs 28490), and floating point math goes to the 245K by 16.1% (130678 vs 112550). The multi-thread test shows a 16.9% advantage for the 245K (43047 vs 36811), while integer math is closer at 8.4% (98524 vs 90882).

Single-core results are more balanced. The 245K wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 4% (322 vs 309.5), wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 17.3% (2169 vs 1849), and wins PassMark single-thread by 10.1% (4714 vs 4280). The 388H takes Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.1% (2200.5 vs 2132) and PassMark physics by 4.5% (3226 vs 3081).

The find prime numbers test goes to the 245K by 15.6% (414 vs 358). Across all 17 recorded tests, the 245K's average winning margin is substantial, while the 388H's two wins are both under 5%. The data shows that the 245K is consistently faster in most compute categories, with the 388H only edging ahead in specific narrow tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 245K has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The 245K has a TDP of 125 W, while the 388H has a TDP of 25 W. The socket types are different: the 245K uses Intel Socket 1851, and the 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 245K has an unlocked multiplier, while the 388H is locked.

Memory support differs. The 245K supports DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and has ECC memory support. The 388H supports LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and does not support ECC memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe lanes differ. The 245K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the 245K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, and the 388H uses Arc B390.

The market segments are different. The 245K is a desktop part, and the 388H is a mobile part. The 245K has a launch MSRP of $319, while the 388H has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates also differ, with the 245K released in October 2024 and the 388H in January 2026. The 245K's part number is SRQCT, and the 388H's part number is SA4QWQ9EK.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel architectures and foundries. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is based on the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 3.

Both processors are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but they come from different foundries. The 245K is fabricated by TSMC, while the 388H is fabricated by Intel. The 245K has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The 388H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

The L3 cache differs between the two. The 245K has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have identical per-core L1 cache at 192 KB and per-core L2 cache at 3 MB.

The generations are labeled differently. The 245K is listed as "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)", and the 388H is listed as "Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H)". The 388H's integrated graphics are the Arc B390, while the 245K uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both are marked as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the dominant processor across most workload categories. In rendering and multi-core compute, it holds large leads: 32.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 30.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and 17.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core. The PassMark suite shows similar dominance in data compression (26.8%), extended instructions (25.6%), random string sorting (25.2%), and multi-thread performance (16.9%). It also wins in encryption, floating point math, integer math, and prime number finding. For single-threaded work, the 245K wins Cinebench R15, Cinebench R20, and PassMark single-thread tests.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in two specific areas. It takes Cinebench R23 single-core by 3.1%, which indicates a slight advantage in that particular single-threaded rendering workload. It also wins PassMark physics by 4.5%. These two wins, however, do not offset the 245K's broader performance advantage. The 388H's higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s) and lower TDP (25 W vs 125 W) are notable specification differences, but the recorded benchmarks do not show these translating into overall performance wins.

The data supports a straightforward split: the 245K is the stronger choice for desktop compute workloads where multi-core performance and single-thread speed matter most. The 388H, with its mobile BGA socket, lower TDP, and locked multiplier, belongs to a different platform category. Its wins in physics and Cinebench R23 single-core are real but narrow. The 245K's 15 wins out of 17 tests make it the clear performance leader in this comparison.