Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H occupy different segments of the desktop and mobile markets, respectively. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance advantage for the desktop part across every recorded workload, with the Ultra 5 250K Plus winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis breaks down the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and specification gaps between the two processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant margin appears in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 against 20547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 50.2% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 43.9% lead (18442 vs 12820), while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4640 versus 3223, a 44% difference. PassMark multithread confirms the pattern with 51596 versus 35399, a 45.8% gap.

Single-core performance also favors the desktop chip, though by a smaller amount. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus records 2261 points compared to 2071.5 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 9.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 43.9% difference (2603 vs 1809), which is notably larger than the R23 margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 328 versus 303.5, an 8.1% delta. PassMark single-thread scores 4757 versus 4218, a 12.8% difference.

The largest recorded advantage appears in PassMark random string sorting. The Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 69090 against 42135, a 64% lead. Data compression shows a 61.4% advantage (568721 vs 352365), and data encryption shows 42144 versus 27150, a 55.2% gap. Extended instructions score 44565 versus 29138, a 52.9% difference. Floating point math shows 162692 versus 108527, a 49.9% lead, while integer math records 125091 versus 87284, a 43.3% advantage.

The narrowest margin of all 17 tests is PassMark physics. The Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 3494 against 3028, a 15.4% lead. Prime number finding shows 486 versus 341, a 42.5% difference. Every single workload in the database records a win for the Ultra 5 250K Plus, with no test where the Ultra 9 386H comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H averages 43210. The desktop chip sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 88th percentile for the mobile part.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 50.2% higher than the 20547 recorded by the Ultra 9 386H. This represents the largest Cinebench multi-core delta between the two processors.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 386H win any single workload in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Ultra 5 250K Plus winning all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, including every Cinebench and PassMark test. The Ultra 9 386H records zero wins.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 2261 versus 2071.5, a 9.1% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4757 versus 4218, a 12.8% difference. The closest single-core margin is Cinebench R15 at 8.1%.

Q: How do the two processors compare on memory bandwidth?

A: Both processors record identical memory bandwidth figures of 115.2 GB/s with dual-channel memory support. The Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5, while the Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so core and thread counts are equal for each.

Architecture Differences

The Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the codename Arrow Lake Refresh, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 9 386H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 with the Panther Lake architecture, codenamed Panther Lake, also on a 3 nm process but fabricated at Intel. This foundry difference is a key architectural distinction: the desktop part comes from TSMC, the mobile part from Intel.

The desktop chip carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The transistor count and die size for the Ultra 9 386H are not recorded in the database. The Ultra 5 250K Plus uses 18 cores, and each core includes 192 KB of L1 cache, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H also has 192 KB of L1 per core but uses 2.5 MB of L2 per core and only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 and L3 cache differences are substantial, with the desktop part holding about 67% more shared L3 cache.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database records no execution unit count for the mobile part. The desktop processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 386H is locked. The desktop part uses the Intel Socket 1851, and the mobile part uses Intel BGA 2540. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Ultra 5 250K Plus supports Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 386H supports Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, and the Ultra 9 386H does not. The release dates differ by roughly two months, with the Ultra 9 386H appearing in January 2026 and the Ultra 5 250K Plus in March 2026. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 9 386H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification field. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads; the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The desktop part has a TDP of 125 watts, and the mobile part has a TDP of 25 watts. This 100-watt TDP gap explains much of the performance difference, though the architecture and cache differences also contribute.

Cache hierarchies differ in L2 and L3. The Ultra 5 250K Plus uses 3 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 9 386H uses 2.5 MB. L3 is 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. Memory support differs: DDR5 for the desktop chip, and DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for the mobile chip. Memory bus is dual-channel for both, and memory bandwidth is identical at 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop part only. PCIe lanes are 20 for the desktop part and 12 for the mobile part, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The market segment is Desktop versus Mobile, and the multiplier is unlocked versus locked. The part numbers are SA4UZ and SA4R5Q9EH. The socket is Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540. The foundry is TSMC versus Intel, though both use a 3 nm process.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single benchmark in the database, with margins ranging from 8.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 64% in PassMark random string sorting. The average benchmark score of 66855 versus 43210 represents a 54.8% advantage for the desktop chip. The 93rd percentile versus 88th percentile ranking confirms that the Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in a higher performance tier among all CPUs.

The Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor with a 25-watt TDP, and the Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor with a 125-watt TDP. The 100-watt TDP difference, combined with 2 additional cores, higher clock speeds, and more cache, explains the recorded performance gap. The Ultra 5 250K Plus also has an unlocked multiplier, which allows further overclocking, and supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 386H has no recorded unlock capability and no ECC support.

For workloads that benefit from multi-threaded throughput, the Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger choice by a wide margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 50.2% lead, and PassMark multithread shows a 45.8% lead. For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 5 250K Plus still leads but by a smaller margin, between 8.1% and 12.8% depending on the test. The mobile part does offer LPDDR5X memory support, which is relevant for laptop designs, but the database records no benchmark advantage from that feature. The Ultra 9 386H also has a lower TDP, which suits thermally constrained mobile chassis, but the performance measurements show it trailing the desktop part across the board. The choice depends on the platform: the desktop Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers the higher measured performance, and the mobile Ultra 9 386H is the only one of the two that fits a BGA 2540 socket.