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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H target different computing environments, a desktop tower versus a mobile laptop. The benchmark data in the database shows a clear overall performance leader, but the margin varies significantly depending on the workload. The Core Ultra 5 245KF wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Core Ultra 9 386H manages a single win. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels and what architectural choices drive those results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the single-core performance gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 5173 against 2071.5 for the Core Ultra 9 386H, a 149.7% advantage. That is a massive difference and it appears consistently across older Cinebench versions too: R15 single-core shows 521 versus 303.5 (71.7% lead) and R20 single-core shows 2172 versus 1809 (20.1% lead). The desktop chip's high boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to 4.90 GHz for the mobile part, explains part of this, but the magnitude suggests architectural efficiency differences as well.

Multi-core performance also favors the desktop processor, though the gap varies by test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 245KF posts 36647 versus 20547, a 78.4% lead. That is a substantial win for rendering workloads. The R15 multi-core test shows a smaller 14.6% advantage (3693 versus 3223), and R20 multi-core shows a 20.1% lead (15391 versus 12820). The database also records PassMark integer math at 98854 for the 245KF versus 87284 for the 386H, a 13.3% edge, and floating point math at 131546 versus 108527, a 21.2% lead.

Other PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. Data compression shows 460123 versus 352365, a 30.6% advantage. Extended instructions score 37912 versus 29138, a 30.1% difference. Random string sorting shows 55206 versus 42135, a 31% lead. Data encryption results in 33381 versus 27150, a 23% edge. Prime number finding gives 416 versus 341, a 22% lead. The overall PassMark multithread score is 43110 for the 245KF versus 35399 for the 386H, a 21.8% difference. Single-thread PassMark shows 4715 versus 4218, an 11.8% advantage.

The lone win for the Core Ultra 9 386H is in PassMark physics, where it scores 3028 against 2998 for the 245KF, a 1% difference. This is a narrow margin, essentially a tie within measurement noise, but it is the only test where the mobile chip does not trail.

The average benchmark score puts the 245KF at 55093, while the 386H sits at 43210. The percentile ranking versus all CPUs places the 245KF at the 91st percentile and the 386H at the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 245KF include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54762 (0.6% behind) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K at 54053 (1.9% behind). The 386H's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 (0.7% behind).

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245KF wins across almost every category that the database measures. Its strongest relative performance is in single-core workloads, where the 149.7% Cinebench R23 lead shows a clear advantage for lightly threaded tasks. This matters for applications that rely on a few fast cores, such as older games, spreadsheet calculations, and general desktop responsiveness. The multi-core Cinebench results, particularly the 78.4% R23 lead, indicate strong performance for rendering, video encoding, and other heavily threaded production workloads.

PassMark data compression and random string sorting are also strongly in favor of the 245KF, with leads of 30.6% and 31% respectively. These tests reflect real-world scenarios like file archiving, database operations, and text processing. The extended instructions test, with a 30.1% lead, suggests better performance for workloads that use advanced CPU instruction sets, such as cryptography or scientific computing.

The Core Ultra 9 386H's single win in PassMark physics shows a narrow edge in that specific simulation test. The physics score of 3028 versus 2998 is a marginal 1% difference, and it does not indicate a broad pattern of wins for the mobile chip. The 386H also holds its own in the multithread PassMark score at 35399, which is within 21.8% of the desktop part despite a much lower TDP of 25 watts versus 125 watts. That efficiency profile is notable for a laptop processor, but the recorded benchmark wins belong almost entirely to the 245KF.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different foundries. The Core Ultra 5 245KF is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC and contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra 9 386H is from Core Ultra Series 3, based on the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. It also uses a 3 nm process node, but the foundry is Intel rather than TSMC. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the 386H.

Core and thread counts differ. The 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread count matches core count. The desktop part has more cores per thread in terms of L2 cache: 3 MB per core for the 245KF versus 2.5 MB per core for the 386H. L3 cache is 24 MB shared for the 245KF versus 18 MB shared for the 386H. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core.

Clock speeds favor the desktop chip substantially. The 245KF has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The 386H runs at 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The TDP difference is large: 125 watts for the desktop part versus 25 watts for the mobile part. The 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, while the 386H does not. The 245KF uses Intel Socket 1851, and the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Memory support differs as well. The 245KF supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ: the 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics is absent on the 245KF, listed as N/A, while the 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. ECC memory is not supported on either part.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF as the stronger performer in almost every recorded benchmark. Its 16 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, including a 149.7% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 78.4% lead in that same test's multi-core, make it the obvious choice for raw compute performance. The average benchmark score confirms this: 55093 versus 43210, a difference that places the 245KF in the 91st percentile versus the 88th percentile for the 386H.

The Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor with a 25 watt TDP and integrated graphics, designed for laptops where power consumption and space matter. Its single PassMark physics win at 3028 versus 2998 is the only recorded test where it beats the desktop chip. For a user building a desktop system with a discrete GPU, the 245KF provides superior results across Cinebench rendering, PassMark math, compression, encryption, and sorting workloads. The 386H suits a portable system where the integrated Xe3 Graphics and lower power envelope are relevant, but the benchmark data shows no performance category where it offers a meaningful advantage over the 245KF.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 5173 versus 2071.5 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, a 149.7% difference.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The 245KF scores 36647, while the 386H scores 20547, giving the 245KF a 78.4% lead.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 386H win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the 386H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3028 against 2998 for the 245KF, a 1% margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 245KF has an average benchmark score of 55093, and the 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 386H supports 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the 245KF supports 102.4 GB/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF | 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 | No | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $294 | Not recorded |