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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably lopsided picture. Across 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX claims 16 wins, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H manages only a single victory. The margin of victory varies dramatically by workload, from a narrow 6.7% single-thread edge to a staggering 176.9% blowout in one Cinebench test.

Starting with multi-core rendering, the Ultra 7 265HX dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 40,642 against the Ultra 9's 20,547, a 97.8% advantage. That gap nearly doubles in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 7 posts 5,737 versus 2,071.5, a 176.9% lead. The pattern holds across older Cinebench versions: R20 multi-core shows 17,069 versus 12,820 (33.1% ahead), and R15 multi-core shows 4,096 versus 3,223 (27.1% ahead). In single-core R20, the Ultra 7 leads 2,409 versus 1,809 (33.2%), and in R15 single-core, 578 versus 303.5 (90.4%).

PassMark workloads reinforce the same hierarchy. Integer math favors the Ultra 7 by 45.4% (126,954 versus 87,284). Floating-point math shows a 48.9% gap (161,605 versus 108,527). Data compression delivers 511,817 versus 352,365, a 45.3% edge. Data encryption follows at 45.4% (39,472 versus 27,150). Extended instructions land 39.8% higher (40,741 versus 29,138). Random string sorting shows a 48.2% advantage (62,458 versus 42,135). The multi-threaded PassMark score sits at 47,985 versus 35,399, a 35.6% lead. Even prime number finding, a workload that often favors efficiency-focused designs, goes to the Ultra 7 by 19.1% (406 versus 341).

The single exception comes in PassMark physics, where the Ultra 9 386H scores 3,028 versus 2,978, a 1.7% edge. This is the only test where the newer Panther Lake part wins, and the margin is small enough to suggest measurement noise rather than a systematic advantage.

Single-thread PassMark results are closer. The Ultra 7 scores 4,500 against 4,218, a 6.7% lead. That modest gap stands in contrast to the enormous Cinebench single-core margins, indicating that the two suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance. The data suggests the Ultra 7's higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz) contributes to its single-thread wins, but the magnitude of the Cinebench gap implies architectural differences beyond raw clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineups with fundamentally different design philosophies. The Ultra 7 265HX belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake with the codename Arrow Lake-HX. It uses a 3 nm process from TSMC and packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 9 386H sits in Core Ultra Series 3, uses Panther Lake architecture, and is manufactured by Intel on its own 3 nm process. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Panther Lake part.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 has 16 cores and 16 threads. Both are flat thread-count designs, but the Ultra 7 brings 25% more cores. The Ultra 7's base clock is 2.60 GHz with a boost of 5.30 GHz. The Ultra 9 runs at 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. Both are mobile parts, but the Ultra 7 carries a 55 W TDP versus the Ultra 9's 25 W, which explains why the Ultra 7 can sustain higher clocks under load.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. Both share 192 KB of L1 per core. The Ultra 7 allocates 3 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 9 uses 2.5 MB per core. Shared L3 cache differs more substantially: 30 MB on the Ultra 7 versus 18 MB on the Ultra 9. That 12 MB L3 gap likely contributes to the Ultra 7's large lead in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support shows a generational split. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. Despite the Ultra 9's faster memory bandwidth, the Ultra 7 still wins every memory-intensive benchmark, indicating that core count and cache size outweigh the bandwidth advantage.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. 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 has an unlocked multiplier; the Ultra 9 does not. Sockets are incompatible: the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114, the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2540.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 265HX wins across nearly every workload category recorded in the database. Rendering, math, encryption, compression, sorting, and general multi-threaded throughput all favor the Arrow Lake part. The 20-core configuration with 30 MB L3 cache delivers consistent advantages in parallel workloads. The 5.30 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge in single-threaded tasks as well.

The Ultra 9 386H's single win in PassMark physics (3,028 versus 2,978) suggests it may have a slight edge in physics simulation workloads, but the 1.7% margin is too thin to draw strong conclusions. Its higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s) and support for LPDDR5X could benefit memory-bound applications, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where that advantage translates into a win.

Looking at the broader picture, the Ultra 7's average benchmark score of 63,173 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 9's average of 43,210 lands in the 88th percentile. The Ultra 7's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13790F (0.1% ahead), AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (0.5% ahead), and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (0.7% ahead). The Ultra 9's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (0.3% ahead), AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.5% ahead), Intel Core i9-12900 (0.7% behind), and Intel Core i9-12900KF (0.9% behind).

The performance tier separation is clear. The Ultra 7 competes with high-end desktop and mobile processors, while the Ultra 9 sits closer to mid-range desktop parts from previous generations. The recorded data shows no workload category where the Ultra 9's lower TDP (25 W versus 55 W) translates into superior performance, though the power efficiency angle remains relevant for mobile system design.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 6.7% to 176.9%. The only loss, PassMark physics, is a 1.7% difference that falls within typical run-to-run variance. The Ultra 7's 20 cores, 30 MB L3 cache, and 5.30 GHz boost clock combine to deliver superior results across rendering, math, compression, and single-thread workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, despite its higher series designation, does not outperform the Ultra 7 in any meaningful way according to the database. Its 16 cores, 18 MB L3 cache, and 4.90 GHz boost clock place it clearly behind. The 25 W TDP indicates a lower-power design, which may suit thin-and-light laptops, but the performance cost is substantial. The Ultra 9's 88th percentile ranking versus the Ultra 7's 93rd confirms the gap.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Ultra 7 265HX is the clear choice based on every recorded metric. The Ultra 9 386H offers a lower power envelope and newer Panther Lake architecture, but the benchmark data does not show any performance benefit from that newer design. The physics test anomaly is too small to recommend the Ultra 9 for that workload specifically.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX leads in PassMark single-thread by 6.7% (4,500 versus 4,218). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is much larger at 176.9% (5,737 versus 2,071.5).

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

A: Yes, it wins PassMark physics with a score of 3,028 versus 2,978, a 1.7% margin. This is the only win among 17 recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the cache difference?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX runs at 2.60 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The Ultra 9 386H runs at 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

|---|---|---|

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX) | Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SRVFH | SA4R5Q9EH |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 63,173 | 43,210 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 93 | 88 |