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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance picture for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus in nearly every measured category. Of the 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded, the desktop part wins all 17, with no test favoring the mobile Intel Core Ultra 9 386H.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6030 against 2071.5 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 191.1% advantage. That is more than a doubling of the score, and it signals a fundamental difference in sustained clock behavior and power delivery. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a similar pattern, with 2532 versus 1809, a 40% lead. The PassMark single-thread result is narrower: 4698 versus 4218, an 11.4% edge, which suggests the mobile chip can hold its own in lighter, shorter bursts but falls behind under sustained load.

Multi-core tests amplify the gap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 42718, while the Ultra 9 386H records 20547, a 107.9% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 17941 versus 12820, a 39.9% lead, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4305 versus 3223, a 33.6% lead. The PassMark multithread test records 50146 versus 35399, a 41.7% advantage.

Specialized workloads follow the same direction. Data compression favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 57%, with scores of 553155 versus 352365. Data encryption shows a 52.1% lead, 41292 versus 27150. Extended instruction throughput is 47.2% higher on the desktop chip, 42880 versus 29138. Floating point math is 47.3% higher, 159824 versus 108527, and integer math is 41% higher, 123030 versus 87284. Random string sorting shows a 59.5% advantage, 67209 versus 42135. Prime number finding is 32.6% faster, 452 versus 341.

The narrowest win is in the PassMark physics test, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 3183 versus 3028, a 5.1% margin. This is the only test where the two parts are close, and it suggests the physics workload is less sensitive to the core count and clock differences that dominate other tests.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus averages 66159 across the recorded benchmarks, while the Ultra 9 386H averages 43210. The desktop chip sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the mobile chip sits at the 88th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different corners of Intel's product stack. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and launching in the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540, using the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename in the Core Ultra Series 3. The generation field for the desktop chip reads "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)", while the mobile chip is "Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H)".

Both chips use a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus is fabricated by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 9 386H is fabricated by Intel, and the database lists no transistor count or die size for it.

Core counts differ by two. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases.

Cache hierarchies diverge in the L2 and L3 levels. Both parts share the same L1 cache at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the desktop chip versus 2.5 MB per core on the mobile chip. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus versus 18 MB shared on the Ultra 9 386H.

Clock speeds are substantially different. The desktop chip runs at a 4.20 GHz base clock and a 5.30 GHz boost clock. The mobile chip runs at a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. The desktop chip also carries a 125 W TDP, while the mobile chip carries a 25 W TDP.

Memory support differs. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both record the same 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the desktop chip but not on the mobile chip.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are absent on the desktop chip, listed as N/A, while the mobile chip includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier and a part number of SA4V3. The mobile chip has a locked multiplier and a part number of SA4R5Q9EH. The release dates place the mobile chip first, with the Ultra 9 386H launching on 2026-01-04 and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus following on 2026-03-10.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus win every head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The recorded data shows 17 wins for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus and 0 for the Ultra 9 386H. The desktop part has a higher base clock (4.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), a higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz), more cores (18 versus 16), more L2 cache per core (3 MB versus 2.5 MB), and more shared L3 cache (30 MB versus 18 MB).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two parts?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6030 versus 2071.5, a 191.1% advantage. The second largest is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the desktop chip leads by 107.9% with 42718 versus 20547.

Q: Is there any test where the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H comes close to the desktop part?

A: The closest result is the PassMark physics test, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 3183 and the Ultra 9 386H scores 3028, a 5.1% margin. The PassMark single-thread test is also relatively close at 11.4%, with 4698 versus 4218.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66159 and sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210 and sits at the 88th percentile.

Q: What architectural features set the two chips apart?

A: The desktop chip uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on Intel Socket 1851, is made by TSMC, and supports ECC memory. The mobile chip uses the Panther Lake architecture on Intel BGA 2540, is made by Intel, includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory.

Q: Do both chips use the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both record 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth with a dual-channel memory bus, even though the desktop chip supports only DDR5 while the mobile chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

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

| Cores | 18 | 16 |

| Threads | 18 | 16 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake Refresh | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) | Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not listed |

| L2 cache | 3 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 30 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| ECC memory | Yes | 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 |

| Release date | 2026-03-10 | 2026-01-04 |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Part number | SA4V3 | SA4R5Q9EH |

The two chips share several specifications. Both use a 3 nm process, both have 192 KB L1 cache per core, both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both record 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth. The L1 cache and memory bandwidth values are identical, so they do not appear in the difference table.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of each win rather than by which chip takes a category.

The desktop part is the clear choice for multi-core rendering and content creation. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 107.9% lead, which is the largest multi-core gap in the data. Cinebench R20 multi-core and R15 multi-core show 39.9% and 33.6% leads respectively. This translates directly to 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across all 18 cores.

Single-core performance is also heavily in favor of the desktop chip. The 191.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The Cinebench R20 single-core lead is 40%, and the Cinebench R15 single-core lead is 100%. Applications that depend on one thread, such as legacy software, scripting, and light interactive tools, will see a substantial advantage on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Data-heavy workloads favor the desktop chip by wide margins. Data compression is 57% higher, data encryption is 52.1% higher, and random string sorting is 59.5% higher. These results point to strong performance in archiving, database operations, and file handling tasks.

Compute-oriented workloads also favor the desktop part. Floating point math is 47.3% higher, integer math is 41% higher, and extended instructions are 47.2% higher. Prime number finding is 32.6% higher. These results cover scientific computing, simulation, and general number-crunching.

The narrowest wins define where the mobile chip is least disadvantaged. The PassMark physics test shows only a 5.1% gap, and the PassMark single-thread test shows an 11.4% gap. These are the only tests where the Ultra 9 386H stays within a meaningful distance, which suggests the mobile chip can approach the desktop part in short-duration single-threaded tasks and in physics simulation workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its role is defined by its platform characteristics rather than its scores. It is a mobile part with a 25 W TDP, integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, and support for LPDDR5X memory, which places it in thin-and-light laptops where power draw and integrated display output matter more than raw compute. The desktop chip, by contrast, requires no integrated graphics, uses 125 W, and is aimed at desktop builds with discrete GPUs.

The percentile rankings summarize the positioning. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile. The average benchmark score difference, 66159 versus 43210, reflects a 53.1% higher average score for the desktop part when computed from the recorded averages.

In workloads that are bursty and short, the mobile chip is competitive. In sustained multi-core, heavy single-core, data manipulation, and math workloads, the desktop chip dominates. The data records no scenario where the Ultra 9 386H leads, so any workload selection will favor the Ultra 5 250KF Plus on performance grounds. The mobile chip's advantages are limited to its form factor, its integrated graphics, and its memory flexibility, none of which appear in the benchmark scores.