Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with its largest advantages appearing in heavily multithreaded tasks. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H does not win any of the 17 recorded tests, yet its relative competitiveness concentrates in specific single-threaded and physics-oriented workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30,867 against the Core Ultra X9 388H's 18,911, a 63.2% advantage. That gap reflects the desktop part's 18 cores versus 16 cores, its higher 5.30 GHz boost clock against 5.10 GHz, and its 125 W TDP envelope compared to the mobile chip's 25 W. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 4,640 versus 2,955, a 57% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore follows at 40.8% ahead, with 18,442 versus 13,101.

Single-threaded results are much closer. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads Cinebench R23 single-core by only 2.7%, scoring 2,261 versus 2,200.5. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 6% gap (328 versus 309.5), while PassMark single-thread shows 4,757 versus 4,280, an 11.1% difference. The mobile part's Panther Lake architecture keeps it competitive when only one core is active, despite its much lower base clock of 2.10 GHz.

PassMark integer math favors the desktop chip by 37.6% (125,091 versus 90,882), while floating-point math shows a 44.6% gap (162,692 versus 112,550). Data compression results are 57.2% apart: 568,721 versus 361,763. The smallest PassMark margin is in the physics test, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 3,494 versus 3,226, only 8.3% ahead.

The Core Ultra X9 388H's closest overall benchmark result comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it trails by just 2.7%. That is the only test where the margin falls below 5%. The next closest margins are Cinebench R15 single-core at 6%, PassMark physics at 8.3%, and PassMark single-thread at 11.1%. Every other test shows a gap of at least 35.8%.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra X9 388H sits at the 88th percentile. The desktop part's average benchmark score is 66,855, and the mobile part's average is 44,466.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger processor for sustained multithreaded workloads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is positioned for thermally constrained mobile systems where its 25 W TDP and integrated Arc B390 graphics matter more than raw compute throughput.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers a 63.2% advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore and a 57% advantage in Cinebench R15 multicore. It leads in every multithreaded PassMark category, from integer math at 37.6% to data encryption at 47.9%. For rendering, code compilation, data compression, and any workload that scales across cores, the desktop part is decisively ahead. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 4465P at 0.1% behind and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 0.2% behind, placing it in server-class company for average score.

The Core Ultra X9 388H is not a competitive desktop replacement based on these numbers. Its 88th percentile ranking and 44,466 average score put it near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, which scores 44,573 and sits 0.2% ahead. It also trades closely with the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% ahead of the X9) and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% ahead). This is a capable mobile processor, but the benchmark record shows it cannot match the desktop part in any of the 17 recorded tests.

The choice depends on the system form factor. For a desktop build with a 125 W thermal budget, an unlocked multiplier, and DDR5 memory support, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses its 18 cores and 5.30 GHz boost to dominate. For a laptop or compact mobile platform with a 25 W TDP, the Core Ultra X9 388H offers competitive single-thread performance at 2.7% behind in Cinebench R23 single-core, while drawing far less power and using LPDDR5X memory at 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus launched with a $199 MSRP. The Core Ultra X9 388H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 30,867 against 18,911, a 63.2% delta. Cinebench R15 multicore follows at 57% (4,640 versus 2,955), tied with PassMark random string sorting, which also shows a 57% delta (69,090 versus 44,010). PassMark data compression is nearly identical at 57.2% (568,721 versus 361,763).

Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core both show a 40.8% delta. The multicore scores are 18,442 versus 13,101, and the single-core scores are 2,603 versus 1,849. This means the gap in Cinebench R20 is identical whether one core or all cores are active, an unusual pattern in the data. PassMark multithread shows 51,596 versus 36,811, a 40.2% delta.

PassMark extended instructions gives the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus a 48.8% lead (44,565 versus 29,943). Data encryption follows at 47.9% (42,144 versus 28,490). Floating-point math is 44.6% apart (162,692 versus 112,550), and integer math is 37.6% apart (125,091 versus 90,882). Find prime numbers shows a 35.8% delta (486 versus 358).

The narrowest wins come in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core is 2.7% apart (2,261 versus 2,200.5). Cinebench R15 single-core is 6% apart (328 versus 309.5). PassMark physics is 8.3% apart (3,494 versus 3,226). PassMark single-thread is 11.1% apart (4,757 versus 4,280).

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core Ultra X9 388H records zero wins. The average benchmark score difference is 22,389 points, with the desktop part at 66,855 and the mobile part at 44,466.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the larger multicore advantage in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 63.2%, scoring 30,867 versus the Core Ultra X9 388H's 18,911.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-threaded performance?

A: The closest result is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 2.7% (2,261 versus 2,200.5). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 6% gap, and PassMark single-thread shows 11.1%.

Q: What is the smallest margin in any test?

A: Cinebench R23 single-core has the smallest margin at 2.7%. The next smallest is Cinebench R15 single-core at 6%, followed by PassMark physics at 8.3%.

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

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. The mobile part has higher recorded memory bandwidth.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is at the 93rd percentile with an average score of 66,855. The Core Ultra X9 388H is at the 88th percentile with an average score of 44,466.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel Core Ultra generations. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is part of Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, while the Core Ultra X9 388H is part of Core Ultra Series 3 with the Panther Lake architecture and Panther Lake-H codename.

Both use a 3 nm process node, but they are manufactured by different foundries. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built by TSMC and has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core Ultra X9 388H is built by Intel, and its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The desktop part uses Intel Socket 1851 and has an unlocked multiplier. The mobile part uses Intel BGA 2540 and has a locked multiplier. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, against 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost for the Core Ultra X9 388H. The TDP difference is substantial: 125 W for the desktop part, 25 W for the mobile part.

Cache layouts differ in L3 capacity. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carries 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra X9 388H carries 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support diverges by platform. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses dual-channel LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU, reflecting its mobile positioning.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Arc B390. The release dates are recorded as 2026-03-10 for the desktop part and 2026-01-04 for the mobile part. Both are listed as active in production. The market segment is Desktop for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Mobile for the Core Ultra X9 388H.