Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with only a single victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 255HX is 62,738, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Ultra 9 386H averages 43,210, sitting at the 88th percentile. That is a gap of roughly 45% in average score, and the closest rival to the Ultra 7 255HX in the database is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, which trails by a mere 0.2%, indicating the Ultra 7 is trading blows with that part. The closest competitor to the Ultra 9 386H is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which is 0.3% ahead of the Intel part.

The Ultra 7 255HX is the pick for any workload that stresses multi-core throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,612 is 58.7% higher than the Ultra 9 386H's 20,547, and its PassMark multithread score of 48,234 is 36.3% higher. The Ultra 9 386H's only win is a narrow one in PassMark physics, where it scores 3,028 against 2,926, a 3.4% advantage. That result suggests a specific workload advantage, but it is an outlier against a broad trend of dominance.

The Ultra 9 386H does have a lower thermal design power (25 watts against the Ultra 7's 55 watts), which indicates it is designed for a different power envelope, but the recorded performance data shows that the Ultra 7 255HX is the faster processor in nearly every measurable category. For users prioritizing raw compute, the Ultra 7 255HX is the clear choice. For those constrained by power limits, the Ultra 9 386H offers a lower-power alternative, but it sacrifices significant performance in exchange.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel series and use fundamentally different silicon. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture (specifically Arrow Lake-HX), and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is from the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture (specifically Panther Lake-H), and is also fabricated on a 3 nm node, but at Intel's own foundry rather than TSMC.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, also without multithreading. That is a 4-core, 4-thread advantage for the Ultra 7, which partially explains its multi-core lead.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both parts share the same L1 cache at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is larger on the Ultra 7 255HX at 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 9 386H. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 7 versus 18 MB on the Ultra 9, a 12 MB difference. The Ultra 7 255HX also has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to the Ultra 9 386H's 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost.

Memory support differs in scope. The Ultra 7 255HX supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 9 386H has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s against the Ultra 7's 102.4 GB/s, despite both using a dual-channel memory bus. The Ultra 7 255HX offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 386H provides 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, whereas the Ultra 9 386H is locked. The release dates are also far apart: the Ultra 7 255HX was released on January 12, 2025, and the Ultra 9 386H on January 4, 2026. The Ultra 7 255HX has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Ultra 9 386H does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the largest disparities. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 255HX scores 4,916 against the Ultra 9's 3,223, a 52.5% difference. The single-core result is closer: 327 versus 303.5, a 7.7% edge for the Ultra 7. Cinebench R20 multi-core favors the Ultra 7 at 17,187 versus 12,820, a 34.1% lead, and the single-core test shows the same 34.1% delta (2,426 versus 1,809). Cinebench R23 multi-core produces the largest margin of the entire comparison: 32,612 versus 20,547, a 58.7% gap. The R23 single-core test is far tighter, with the Ultra 7 at 2,163 and the Ultra 9 at 2,071.5, a 4.4% advantage.

PassMark results continue the trend. Data compression on the Ultra 7 255HX scores 515,143, which is 46.2% higher than the Ultra 9's 352,365. Data encryption shows a 45.5% gap (39,499 versus 27,150). Extended instructions favor the Ultra 7 by 41.6% (41,247 versus 29,138). Finding prime numbers gives the Ultra 7 a 17.3% edge (400 versus 341). Floating point math is 48% higher on the Ultra 7 (160,624 versus 108,527). Integer math is 45.6% ahead (127,126 versus 87,284). The multithread score is 36.3% higher (48,234 versus 35,399). Random string sorting shows a 48.5% advantage (62,591 versus 42,135). Single-thread performance is 8.2% higher on the Ultra 7 (4,562 versus 4,218).

The sole Ultra 9 386H victory is in PassMark physics, where it scores 3,028 against the Ultra 7's 2,926, a delta of negative 3.4% for the Ultra 7. This indicates that in this specific physics simulation, the Ultra 9 386H delivers slightly better results, but it does not offset the overwhelming multi-core deficit. Across all recorded tests, the Ultra 7 255HX wins by margins ranging from 4.4% to 58.7%, with most multi-core and math-heavy workloads showing gaps of 34% or more.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The thermal design power is 55 watts for the Ultra 7 and 25 watts for the Ultra 9. The socket types are different: Intel BGA 2114 for the Ultra 7, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 9.

The L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the Ultra 7 and 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 9. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 7 and 18 MB on the Ultra 9. Memory support is DDR5-only for the Ultra 7, while the Ultra 9 adds LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 and 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9. PCIe lanes are 20 on the Ultra 7 and 12 on the Ultra 9, both Gen 5 and CPU-only. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 7 and Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 9. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier; the Ultra 9 is locked. The foundry is TSMC for the Ultra 7 and Intel for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 7 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Ultra 9 has no recorded figures for either. The release date for the Ultra 7 is January 12, 2025, and for the Ultra 9 it is January 4, 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

A: The largest recorded gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 255HX scores 32,612 against the Ultra 9 386H's 20,547, a difference of 58.7%.

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

A: Yes, the Ultra 9 386H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3,028, which is 3.4% higher than the Ultra 7 255HX's 2,926.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H also has 192 KB of L1 per core, but only 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The Ultra 7 255HX supports 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 386H supports 12 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 386H has a higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 255HX, despite both using a dual-channel memory bus.