Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H takes only 2. The largest margins appear in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 255HX scores 32612 against 18911 for the 388H, a 72.4% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern, with 4916 versus 2955, a 66.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 17187 versus 13101, a 31.2% gap.

The 255HX also dominates in PassMark's throughput tests. Data compression shows 515143 against 361763, a 42.4% difference. Floating point math produces 160624 versus 112550, a 42.7% gap. Integer math follows with 127126 versus 90882, a 39.9% lead. Random string sorting lands at 62591 versus 44010, a 42.2% margin. Extended instructions score 41247 versus 29943, a 37.8% difference. Data encryption records 39499 against 28490, a 38.6% gap. The multithread score for the 255HX is 48234, while the 388H reaches 36811, a 31% difference.

Single-core results are closer. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 255HX scores 327 versus 309.5, a 5.7% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2426 versus 1849, a 31.2% gap. PassMark single-thread results give the 255HX 4562 versus 4280, a 6.6% edge. The one notable exception in single-core testing is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 388H wins 2200.5 versus 2163, a 1.7% advantage. The other 388H win comes in PassMark physics, 3226 versus 2926, a 9.3% margin.

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall gap. The 255HX sits at 62738, while the 388H records 44466. In percentile ranking against all CPUs, the 255HX lands at the 93rd percentile, the 388H at the 88th. The nearest rivals for the 255HX include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 at 62839 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 at 62498 (0.4% lower), the Intel Core i7-13790F at 63080 (0.5% higher), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX at 63173 (0.7% higher). For the 388H, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 (0.2% higher), the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 44309 (0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240 (0.5% lower).

Where Each One Wins

The 255HX wins decisively in multi-threaded productivity. Its 20 cores and 20 threads provide substantial headroom for rendering, compilation, and batch processing. The Cinebench multi-core deltas, ranging from 31.2% to 72.4%, indicate that software using many threads will see large gains. PassMark multithread confirms this with a 31% advantage. For users running parallel workloads, the 255HX is the clear choice.

The 388H wins in two specific areas. PassMark physics at 3226 versus 2926 represents a 9.3% lead, suggesting better performance in physics simulation tasks that rely on that particular benchmark's workload. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 1.7% edge, 2200.5 versus 2163, indicating slightly stronger per-core capability in that specific test. However, the 255HX wins the other three single-core benchmarks, so the 388H's single-core advantage is not consistent across all tests.

The 255HX also holds advantages in memory bandwidth related workloads. Its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while lower than the 388H's 153.6 GB/s, does not translate into a win for the 388H in any memory-sensitive benchmark recorded. The 255HX's PassMark data compression and random string sorting wins, both above 42%, suggest that its larger L3 cache (30 MB versus 18 MB) helps in data manipulation tasks.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the stronger processor for the vast majority of workloads. Its 15 benchmark wins versus 2 for the 388H, combined with a 72.4% peak delta in Cinebench R23 multi-core, makes it the better choice for tasks that use all available cores. The 255HX also leads in single-core performance in most tests, with a 6.6% PassMark single-thread advantage and a 5.7% Cinebench R15 single-core lead.

The 388H's wins are narrow or workload-specific. The 9.3% PassMark physics lead and the 1.7% Cinebench R23 single-core advantage do not compensate for the large multi-core deficits. For users who prioritize physics simulation performance or that specific Cinebench R23 single-core workload, the 388H has a niche role. Otherwise, the 255HX delivers better results across nearly every measured category.

The 255HX also holds a higher percentile ranking at 93 versus 88, placing it closer to the top of the database's CPU performance distribution. Its nearest rivals cluster within 0.7% of its average score, indicating a tight competitive field at the high end. The 388H's nearest rivals also cluster closely, within 0.5%, but at a lower performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins all four multi-core Cinebench tests by large margins. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32612 versus 18911, a 72.4% lead. R20 multi-core shows 17187 versus 13101, a 31.2% gap. R15 multi-core shows 4916 versus 2955, a 66.4% difference. PassMark multithread also favors the 255HX, 48234 versus 36811, a 31% advantage.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two tests. PassMark physics records 3226 versus 2926, a 9.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2200.5 versus 2163, a 1.7% advantage. These are the only two head-to-head comparisons where the 388H comes out ahead.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The 255HX leads in three of four single-core tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 327 versus 309.5, a 5.7% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2426 versus 1849, a 31.2% gap. PassMark single-thread shows 4562 versus 4280, a 6.6% edge. The 388H wins only Cinebench R23 single-core, 2200.5 versus 2163, a 1.7% margin.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both processors use a 3 nm process node, but the 255HX is fabricated by TSMC while the 388H is fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports 153.6 GB/s, which is higher than the 255HX's 102.4 GB/s. The 388H uses LPDDR5X memory, while the 255HX uses DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the cache sizes for each processor?

A: Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the 255HX has 30 MB shared, while the 388H has 18 MB shared.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 255HX is fabricated by TSMC, while the 388H is fabricated by Intel.

The transistor count and die size data reflect this difference. The 255HX has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 388H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The 255HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, while the 388H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The 255HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the 388H does not.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 255HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 388H uses Arc B390. PCIe support also differs: the 255HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The 255HX has a higher TDP at 55 watts, while the 388H operates at 25 watts.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the 255HX and 2.10 GHz for the 388H. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz for the 255HX and 5.10 GHz for the 388H. The 255HX has a 55 W TDP, the 388H has a 25 W TDP.

Memory support differs by type and bandwidth. The 255HX supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 388H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both are dual-channel. Neither supports ECC memory. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared for the 255HX and 18 MB shared for the 388H. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core: 192 KB and 3 MB respectively.

The release dates differ by roughly a year. The 255HX was released on 2025-01-12, while the 388H was released on 2026-01-04. The part numbers are SRVFG for the 255HX and SA4QWQ9EK for the 388H. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both are active production parts for the mobile market segment.