Intel Core Ultra 7 265F vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, which wins 16 of the 17 benchmark comparisons. The only exception is the PassMark physics test, where the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H edges ahead by 1.7 percent (3226 versus 3172). That narrow win does not offset the scale of the desktop part's advantages elsewhere.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 265F scores 5926 against the X9 388H's 2200.5, a 169.3 percent lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 597 versus 309.5, a 92.9 percent delta. These results indicate that the desktop processor delivers substantially higher per-thread throughput, which directly influences responsiveness in lightly threaded workloads.

Multi-core Cinebench results tell a more mixed story depending on the test version. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265F produces 41980 versus 18911, a 122 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the lead narrows to 34.6 percent (17631 versus 13101). Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 43.2 percent gap (4231 versus 2955). The R23 result is the outlier, with the largest relative multi-core margin of any benchmark in the set. The R20 and R15 results cluster closer together, suggesting that the 265F's advantage scales with workload duration and instruction mix.

PassMark integer math favors the 265F by 51.9 percent (138078 versus 90882), while floating point math shows a 54.5 percent lead (173855 versus 112550). Data compression is 40.2 percent higher (507018 versus 361763), and data encryption is 38.5 percent higher (39468 versus 28490). Extended instructions, which often reflect SIMD and specialized execution, show a 31 percent gap (39235 versus 29943). Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive operation, gives the 265F a 41.9 percent edge (62439 versus 44010). Prime number finding, which is heavily dependent on integer execution and branch handling, shows a smaller 16.2 percent margin (416 versus 358).

PassMark multithread puts the 265F at 49410 versus 36811, a 34.2 percent lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4750 versus 4280, an 11 percent advantage. That single-thread margin is smaller than the Cinebench single-core deltas, which indicates that the two suites weight different aspects of single-core performance. The Cinebench tests amplify the boost clock and microarchitectural differences, while PassMark single-thread compresses them.

Averaging all recorded benchmark scores, the 265F reaches 64438, which places it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The X9 388H averages 44466, at the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 265F include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3 percent ahead), the AMD EPYC 7343 (0.4 percent behind), the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.6 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.6 percent behind). The X9 388H sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2 percent behind), the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3 percent ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i5-13600 (0.5 percent ahead). These deltas show that the 265F competes with server-class and high-end desktop parts, while the X9 388H aligns with mid-range desktop and high-end mobile chips.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438, which is substantially higher than the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's 44466. The 265F also holds a 93rd percentile ranking versus the X9 388H's 88th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The 265F scores 41980 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 122 percent higher than the X9 388H's 18911. This is the largest multi-core margin recorded across all head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the X9 388H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the X9 388H wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 3226 against the 265F's 3172, a 1.7 percent advantage. It loses the other 16 comparisons.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the 265F scores 4750 versus 4280, an 11 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is much larger: 5926 versus 2200.5, a 169.3 percent advantage for the 265F.

Q: How do the processors compare on memory bandwidth?

A: The X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is higher than the 265F's 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the X9 388H supports LPDDR5X while the 265F supports DDR5.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for desktop users who need maximum compute throughput. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F leads in nearly every recorded metric, including Cinebench multi-core and single-core, PassMark integer and floating point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting. Its 20 cores and 20 threads outperform the 16-core X9 388H across the board, and its 5.30 GHz boost clock contributes to single-core results that are up to 169.3 percent higher in Cinebench R23. The 265F also carries a 30 MB shared L3 cache versus the X9 388H's 18 MB, which helps in cache-sensitive workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, however, is a mobile processor on a 25 watt TDP, while the 265F is a desktop part at 65 watts. The X9 388H's higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and integrated Arc B390 graphics make it a more self-contained solution for compact systems. Its PassMark physics score of 3226 slightly exceeds the 265F's 3172, which indicates that the mobile part holds an edge in that specific physics simulation workload. For users constrained by power or footprint, the X9 388H offers a competitive option within its segment, but the benchmark data does not support it as a performance leader against the 265F.

The 265F's nearest rivals in the database, including the AMD EPYC 7343 and the Intel Core i9-13900KS, sit within 0.6 percent of its average score. That places the 265F in a performance tier that the X9 388H does not approach. The X9 388H's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-13950HX and the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, are closer to its own average score. The verdict from the measurements is unambiguous: the 265F is the stronger computational part, while the X9 388H is a capable mobile alternative with specific advantages in power efficiency and integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the 265F and 2.10 GHz for the X9 388H. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 5.10 GHz, respectively. The 265F has a 65 watt TDP, while the X9 388H has a 25 watt TDP.

The 265F uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop installation, while the X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540 for soldered mobile mounting. Memory support differs: the 265F uses DDR5, and the X9 388H uses LPDDR5X. Both have dual-channel memory buses, but the 265F achieves 102.4 GB/s while the X9 388H reaches 153.6 GB/s. The 265F provides Gen 5 PCIe with 20 CPU lanes, while the X9 388H provides Gen 5 PCIe with only 4 CPU lanes.

The 265F has no integrated graphics, while the X9 388H includes Arc B390 graphics. The 265F was released on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $379, and the X9 388H was released on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The 265F has a part number of SRQCV, while the X9 388H has SA4QWQ9EK.

Cache configurations are identical per core: 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core. The shared L3 differs, with the 265F offering 30 MB and the X9 388H offering 18 MB. The 265F uses a 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors, while the X9 388H has no recorded die size or transistor count.

Architecture Differences

The 265F is built on the Arrow Lake-S architecture under the Core Ultra Series 2, while the X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture under the Core Ultra Series 3, specifically the Panther Lake-H variant. Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: the 265F is produced by TSMC, while the X9 388H is produced by Intel. This foundry difference is notable even though the process node is the same.

The 265F's codename is Arrow Lake-S, indicating a desktop variant, while the X9 388H's codename is Panther Lake, indicating a mobile variant. The 265F is listed as part of the Ultra 7 generation (Arrow Lake), while the X9 388H is listed as Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H). The market segments reinforce this split: the 265F targets desktop systems, and the X9 388H targets mobile systems.

The integrated graphics difference is a major architectural distinction. The 265F has no integrated graphics, which means it relies on a discrete GPU. The X9 388H includes Arc B390 graphics, which provides an on-chip display and compute solution. This feature set aligns with the mobile target, where discrete graphics may not always be present.

The PCIe lane allocation also reflects the architectural split. The 265F offers 20 Gen 5 CPU lanes, which suits desktop expansion cards and high-bandwidth peripherals. The X9 388H offers only 4 Gen 5 CPU lanes, which is consistent with a compact mobile platform where most I/O is handled by the chipset or integrated devices. The memory controller differences, DDR5 versus LPDDR5X, further separate the two architectures: the 265F targets standard desktop memory modules, while the X9 388H uses low-power soldered memory.

The transistor count and die size data also differ. The 265F records 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The X9 388H has no recorded transistor count or die size. The 265F's larger L3 cache (30 MB versus 18 MB) and higher core count align with its desktop positioning. The X9 388H's lower TDP (25 watts versus 65 watts) reflects a design tuned for thermal and power constraints, not raw throughput.