Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H represent two distinct approaches within Intel's recent lineup. The Ultra 7 265 is a desktop processor built on the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor using the Panther Lake architecture. The database shows a fundamental split: the desktop part dominates in most raw compute tests, while the mobile part shows specific strengths in certain Cinebench workloads and physics simulations. The following analysis compares their architectures, specifications, and recorded benchmark performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 64640, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's 43210. This places the Ultra 7 265 in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 386H sits in the 88th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors differ in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so the thread count matches the core count in both cases.

Q: What are the biggest performance differences in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5960 versus 2071.5, a 187.7% advantage. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins the Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core tests with a score of 12820 versus 6268, and 1809 versus 884, respectively, a 51.1% difference.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, but the L2 cache differs: 3 MB per core for the Ultra 7 265 versus 2.5 MB per core for the Ultra 9 386H.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts, reflecting its mobile design and lower power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, with the codename Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is designed for the desktop segment, using an Intel Socket 1851. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, with the codename Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. It targets the mobile segment, using an Intel BGA 2540 socket.

The manufacturing process differs as well. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry is different. The Ultra 7 265 is fabricated by TSMC, while the Ultra 9 386H is fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 7 265 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the database lists no transistor count or die size for the Ultra 9 386H.

Core configuration is a major differentiator. The Ultra 7 265 provides 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. The cache hierarchy also shows differences. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is larger on the desktop part, at 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. The shared L3 cache is 30 MB on the Ultra 7 265, compared to 18 MB on the Ultra 9 386H.

The integrated graphics are different. The Ultra 7 265 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Memory support also diverges: the Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 only, while the Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split in strengths. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins in the majority of tests, particularly in multi-core rendering and integer-heavy workloads. Its advantages are substantial in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 42216 against the Ultra 9 386H's 20547, a 105.5% lead. It also wins in PassMark tests for data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in three specific areas. It takes the Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core tests with scores of 12820 and 1809, respectively, beating the Ultra 7 265's 6268 and 884. It also wins the PassMark physics test, scoring 3028 against 2923, a 3.5% margin.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the recorded data.

• Cores: 20 (Ultra 7 265) versus 16 (Ultra 9 386H)
• Threads: 20 (Ultra 7 265) versus 16 (Ultra 9 386H)
• Base Clock: 2.40 GHz (Ultra 7 265) versus 2.10 GHz (Ultra 9 386H)
• Boost Clock: 5.30 GHz (Ultra 7 265) versus 4.90 GHz (Ultra 9 386H)
• TDP: 65 W (Ultra 7 265) versus 25 W (Ultra 9 386H)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 (Ultra 7 265) versus Intel BGA 2540 (Ultra 9 386H)
• Architecture: Arrow Lake (Ultra 7 265) versus Panther Lake (Ultra 9 386H)
• Foundry: TSMC (Ultra 7 265) versus Intel (Ultra 9 386H)
• L2 Cache: 3 MB per core (Ultra 7 265) versus 2.5 MB per core (Ultra 9 386H)
• L3 Cache: 30 MB shared (Ultra 7 265) versus 18 MB shared (Ultra 9 386H)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (Ultra 7 265) versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X (Ultra 9 386H)
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (Ultra 7 265) versus 115.2 GB/s (Ultra 9 386H)
• PCIe Lanes: Gen 5, 20 lanes CPU only (Ultra 7 265) versus Gen 5, 12 lanes CPU only (Ultra 9 386H)
• Integrated Graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU (Ultra 7 265) versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (Ultra 9 386H)
• Market Segment: Desktop (Ultra 7 265) versus Mobile (Ultra 9 386H)
• Release Date: 2025-01-06 (Ultra 7 265) versus 2026-01-04 (Ultra 9 386H)
• Launch MSRP: $394 (Ultra 7 265) versus not listed (Ultra 9 386H)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records 17 benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 14 of them, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins 3. The largest single advantage for the Ultra 7 265 comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 187.7% lead. In that test, it scores 5960 versus 2071.5. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test also shows a massive gap, with the Ultra 7 265 scoring 42216 against 20547, a 105.5% difference.

PassMark results consistently favor the Ultra 7 265. Data compression shows a 48.4% lead (522983 versus 352365). Data encryption is 49% higher (40456 versus 27150). Extended instructions are up 42.4% (41478 versus 29138). Floating point math is 59.2% higher (172776 versus 108527). Integer math shows a 54.4% advantage (134773 versus 87284). Multithread performance is 40.3% higher (49682 versus 35399). Random string sorting is 51.5% higher (63833 versus 42135). Single-thread tests show a more modest 11.2% lead for the Ultra 7 265, with scores of 4689 versus 4218. Prime number finding is 22.6% higher (418 versus 341).

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins in three tests. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 51.1% advantage, with the mobile part scoring 12820 versus 6268. The Cinebench R20 single-core test also shows a 51.1% advantage, with scores of 1809 versus 884. The PassMark physics test shows a 3.5% lead for the Ultra 9 386H, scoring 3028 against 2923.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger overall performer. Its average benchmark score of 64640 places it in the 93rd percentile, and it holds a 49.6% advantage over the Ultra 9 386H's average score of 43210. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P, which is 0.3% ahead, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which is 0.3% behind. The Ultra 7 265 delivers decisive wins in Cinebench R23 and most PassMark tests, making it the clear choice for workloads that rely on high multi-core throughput and single-core speed.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, with a 25 W TDP and mobile socket, is positioned for a different role. Its wins in Cinebench R20 and PassMark physics suggest it handles certain rendering and simulation tasks competently. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and the Intel Core i9-12900, are within 0.7% and 0.9% of its average score, respectively. The mobile part is competitive within its power class, but the recorded data shows that the desktop Ultra 7 265 is substantially faster in most measured categories.

For a desktop user seeking maximum compute performance, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger option based on the database records. For a mobile system where power draw and platform are primary constraints, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H provides a capable set of results, though it trails the Ultra 7 265 in overall throughput. The choice between them is defined by the platform: the desktop part wins on raw performance, while the mobile part offers a lower power envelope and a different feature set.