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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F boosts up to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H boosts up to 4.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has a TDP of 65 watts, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Do both processors support integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Q: What are their respective market segments?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1851, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor using Intel BGA 2540.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is one-sided. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every single one. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not claim a single victory in any of the compared workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F dominates in heavily multithreaded applications. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 41980 versus 20547, a 104.3% advantage. That margin is more than double the mobile chip's output. The PassMark multithread test shows a 39.6% lead, with scores of 49410 against 35399. The desktop part also leads in data compression by 43.9%, scoring 507018 versus 352365.

The single-core picture is similarly favorable for the desktop part, but the margins vary by workload. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 265F scores 5926 versus 2071.5, a 186.1% lead. However, in PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 12.6%, with scores of 4750 versus 4218. The Cinebench R15 single-core result shows a 96.7% delta, with 597 versus 303.5.

The closest contest appears in PassMark physics, where the 265F leads by only 4.8%, scoring 3172 versus 3028. This suggests that in a specific simulation-style workload, the mobile chip's architecture is comparatively competitive. Still, it does not overcome the desktop part's overall advantage.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and uses the Arrow Lake architecture on the Arrow Lake-S codename. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake architecture on the Panther Lake codename. Both are built on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 265F is fabricated by TSMC, while the 386H is fabricated by Intel.

The desktop part integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The mobile part does not have recorded transistor count or die size data in the database.

Cache allocations differ beyond the total L3. Both parts have 192 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 265F versus 2.5 MB per core on the 386H. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared on the desktop part versus 18 MB shared on the mobile part.

Memory support also splits along form factor lines. The 265F supports DDR5 only, while the 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The 386H has a higher recorded memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 265F.

The PCIe implementation differs as well. The 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip has ECC memory support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Integrated graphics is a major architectural split. The 265F has no integrated graphics. The 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, which makes it suitable for systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU.

The release timing differs. The 265F was released in 2025, while the 386H is dated 2026. Both are listed as active production parts.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 20 cores and 20 threads for the 265F, versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 386H.

Base clock speeds differ, with the 265F at 2.40 GHz and the 386H at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the 265F reaching 5.30 GHz and the 386H reaching 4.90 GHz.

TDP is a significant differentiator. The 265F is rated at 65 watts, while the 386H is rated at 25 watts.

The sockets are not interchangeable. The 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.

The L2 cache per core is 3 MB on the 265F versus 2.5 MB on the 386H. The L3 cache is 30 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory bandwidth is higher on the mobile part at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s on the desktop part.

PCIe lane count favors the desktop part at 20 lanes versus 12 lanes.

The 265F has no integrated graphics, while the 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The market segment differs: desktop versus mobile.

The 265F has a recorded launch MSRP of $379. The 386H has no recorded launch MSRP.

The part numbers are different, with the 265F identified as SRQCV and the 386H as SA4R5Q9EH.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5926 against 2071.5, a 186.1% delta. This is an unusually large gap for a single-threaded test and indicates a substantial difference in per-core performance between the two architectures.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 104.3% lead, with 41980 versus 20547. The desktop part more than doubles the mobile part's score in this rendering workload.

In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 265F leads by 96.7%, scoring 597 versus 303.5. Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core both show a 37.5% delta. In multi-core, the scores are 17631 versus 12820, while in single-core they are 2488 versus 1809.

PassMark floating point math shows a 60.2% lead for the 265F, with 173855 versus 108527. PassMark integer math follows with a 58.2% lead, scoring 138078 versus 87284. PassMark random string sorting shows a 48.2% delta, with 62439 versus 42135.

PassMark data encryption shows a 45.4% lead, with 39468 versus 27150. PassMark data compression shows a 43.9% lead, with 507018 versus 352365. PassMark multithread shows a 39.6% lead, with 49410 versus 35399.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 34.7% delta, with 39235 versus 29138. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 31.3% delta, with 4231 versus 3223.

PassMark find prime numbers shows a 22% lead, with 416 versus 341. PassMark single-thread (listed twice in the database) shows a 12.6% lead, with 4750 versus 4218.

The smallest recorded advantage is in PassMark physics, where the 265F leads by 4.8%, scoring 3172 versus 3028. This is the only head-to-head test where the delta falls below 10%.

The overall average benchmark score reflects the same hierarchy. The 265F records an average benchmark score of 64438, while the 386H records 43210. The 265F sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 386H sits at the 88th percentile.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H in every recorded benchmark, with wins in all 17 head-to-head tests.

For rendering workloads, the 265F is decisively stronger. Cinebench R23 multi-core results show it more than doubling the 386H's score. For single-threaded tasks, the margin is even larger in Cinebench tests, though PassMark single-thread shows a much smaller 12.6% gap.

For productivity tasks such as data compression, encryption, and string sorting, the 265F leads by margins between 22% and 48.2%. These are substantial differences that would be noticeable in real-world use.

The 386H retains advantages in different areas. It has a lower 25 watt TDP, which makes it suitable for mobile platforms. It includes integrated graphics, which the 265F lacks entirely. It also supports LPDDR5X memory and has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

The 265F is the choice for desktop users who need maximum compute performance and do not require integrated graphics. The 386H is the choice for mobile systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics are necessary. The benchmark record does not show any workload where the 386H beats the 265F, so the decision rests on platform requirements rather than benchmark results.