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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The only exception is the PassMark physics test, where the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H leads by a narrow 1.3 percent margin, scoring 3226 against 3183.

Multi-threaded workloads reveal the largest gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 250KF Plus scores 42718 versus 18911, a 125.9 percent advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire benchmark set. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 45.7 percent lead (4305 versus 2955), while Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers a 36.9 percent gap (17941 versus 13101). PassMark multi-thread confirms the trend, with the 250KF Plus at 50146 and the 388H at 36811, a 36.2 percent difference.

Single-core results also favor the desktop part, though the margins vary considerably by test version. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 96.1 percent lead (607 versus 309.5), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 174 percent lead (6030 versus 2200.5). Cinebench R20 single-core records a 36.9 percent gap (2532 versus 1849). PassMark single-thread is far closer, with the 250KF Plus at 4698 and the 388H at 4280, a 9.8 percent difference. This suggests the mobile chip's single-thread efficiency is competitive in certain workloads, but the desktop part still holds the edge.

The PassMark suite shows consistent, substantial wins for the 250KF Plus across specialized tasks. Data compression scores 553155 versus 361763, a 52.9 percent lead. Random string sorting records 67209 versus 44010, a 52.7 percent gap. Data encryption shows a 44.9 percent advantage (41292 versus 28490). Extended instructions deliver a 43.2 percent lead (42880 versus 29943). Floating point math is 42 percent ahead (159824 versus 112550), and integer math is 35.4 percent ahead (123030 versus 90882). Find prime numbers shows the smallest PassMark delta at 26.3 percent (452 versus 358).

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this disparity. The 250KF Plus records an average benchmark score of 66159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The 388H averages 44466, which sits in the 88th percentile. The average score gap is roughly 48.8 percent in favor of the desktop chip.

Relative to their nearest rivals, both processors sit in similar competitive bands. The 250KF Plus is 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099) and 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914). It trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1 percent (66855) and the AMD EPYC 4465P by 1.1 percent (66925). The 388H is 0.2 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44573), 0.3 percent ahead of the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342), 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44309), and 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600 (44240). These figures indicate both chips are well positioned within their respective market segments, though the absolute performance levels are far apart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 16 of 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins only the PassMark physics test, with a 1.3 percent margin.

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

A: The largest delta appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 250KF Plus scores 6030 versus 2200.5, a 174 percent advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core is close behind with a 125.9 percent gap.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The 250KF Plus leads with a score of 4698 versus 4280, a 9.8 percent difference. This is the smallest single-core margin in the entire benchmark set, indicating the 388H is relatively competitive in this specific workload.

Q: Are both processors in the top percentile of all CPUs?

A: Yes. The 250KF Plus is in the 93rd percentile, while the 388H is in the 88th percentile. Both are above the 85th percentile, but the desktop part ranks higher overall.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 250KF Plus records an average benchmark score of 66159, compared to 44466 for the 388H. This represents a substantial overall performance advantage for the desktop chip.

Q: Does the 388H beat the 250KF Plus in any memory-related or physics workload?

A: The only recorded win for the 388H is in PassMark physics, scoring 3226 against 3183. The database does not show any memory bandwidth test results, so no conclusion can be drawn from that data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 and is a desktop part (market segment: Desktop) built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, and targets mobile systems (market segment: Mobile).

Both chips are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 250KF Plus is manufactured by TSMC, while the 388H is manufactured by Intel. The desktop chip has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the database records no transistor count or die size for the 388H.

Core counts differ as well. The 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both. Cache hierarchies share the same per-core L1 (192 KB per core) and L2 (3 MB per core) configurations, but the shared L3 differs: 30 MB for the 250KF Plus versus 18 MB for the 388H.

Clock speeds show the desktop part running significantly higher. The 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. This explains much of the single-core performance gap, particularly in Cinebench tests where the 250KF Plus leads by up to 174 percent.

Memory support differs by type and bandwidth. The 250KF Plus supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 388H supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The mobile chip has higher memory bandwidth, though no benchmark data directly measures memory throughput. ECC memory is supported on the 250KF Plus but not on the 388H.

PCIe lane counts also differ substantially. The 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are absent on the 250KF Plus (listed as N/A), while the 388H includes Arc B390 graphics. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier, the mobile chip does not. The 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 388H uses Intel BGA 2540.

The power envelopes differ dramatically. The 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 388H has a TDP of 25 watts. This is a fivefold difference in thermal design power, which contextualizes why the desktop chip sustains higher clock speeds and delivers far higher multi-threaded throughput.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split by use case. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger processor for compute-heavy, multi-threaded tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42718 versus 18911, and its PassMark multi-thread score of 50146 versus 36811, make it the obvious choice for rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores. It also leads in every single-core test, with margins ranging from 9.8 percent (PassMark single-thread) to 174 percent (Cinebench R23 single-core).

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is not without merit. Its PassMark physics score of 3226 edges out the 250KF Plus by 1.3 percent, indicating a specific workload where the mobile part performs slightly better. Its higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s) and lower TDP (25 watts versus 125 watts) suggest it is designed for power-constrained environments, though the database does not include efficiency benchmarks to quantify that trade-off. The 388H also includes integrated Arc B390 graphics, which the 250KF Plus lacks entirely.

The percentile rankings contextualize the gap. The 250KF Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 388H sits in the 88th percentile. Both are above average, but the desktop part occupies a higher performance tier. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the 250KF Plus trades within 1.1 percent of chips like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, whereas the 388H trades within 0.5 percent of chips like the Intel Core i5-13600 and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D.

For users prioritizing raw compute, the 250KF Plus is the clear selection based on benchmark results. For users in a mobile form factor with limited power and needing integrated graphics, the 388H offers a different set of capabilities, but its performance ceiling is measurably lower across almost every recorded test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| 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 | 5.10 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 X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

| Launch MSRP | $184 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SA4V3 | SA4QWQ9EK |