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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX. Across the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, the Ultra 7 265HX wins 16, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H secures a single victory. The margins, however, vary widely depending on the workload type.

In multi-core rendering tasks, the Ultra 7 265HX delivers substantial leads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,642 against 18,911 for the Ultra X9 388H, a delta of 114.9%. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a narrower but still significant gap: 17,069 versus 13,101, a 30.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core repeats the pattern with 4,096 against 2,955, a 38.6% lead. This suggests the Ultra 7 265HX is far better suited for sustained multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core results tell a more complex story. The Cinebench R23 single-core score for the Ultra 7 265HX is 5,737, while the Ultra X9 388H scores 2,200.5, a delta of 160.7%. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 2,409 versus 1,849, a 30.3% difference, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 578 versus 309.5, an 86.8% gap. These are unusually large single-core disparities, indicating a fundamental architectural or clock-speed difference that heavily favors the Ultra 7 265HX.

In PassMark integer math, the Ultra 7 265HX scores 126,954 against 90,882, a 39.7% lead. Floating point math shows 161,605 versus 112,550, a 43.6% advantage. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265HX at 511,817 versus 361,763, a 41.5% delta. Data encryption shows 39,472 versus 28,490, a 38.5% difference. Extended instructions (SIMD-style workloads) deliver 40,741 against 29,943, a 36.1% lead. Random string sorting shows 62,458 versus 44,010, a 41.9% advantage. Prime number finding is closer, with 406 versus 358, a 13.4% delta.

The PassMark multi-thread score gives the Ultra 7 265HX a 47,985 versus 36,811 result, a 30.4% lead. Single-thread performance is the tightest race among the wins, with 4,500 versus 4,280, a 5.1% margin for the Ultra 7 265HX. The only benchmark where the Ultra X9 388H wins is PassMark physics, scoring 3,226 against 2,978, a 7.7% advantage for the Ultra X9 388H. This single win hints that the newer Panther Lake architecture may handle specific physics simulation workloads more efficiently, despite losing everywhere else.

The average benchmark score gap is substantial: the Ultra 7 265HX averages 63,173 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra X9 388H averages 44,466, placing it in the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 265HX include the Intel Core i7-13790F (average score 63,080, delta 0.1%), AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (63,331, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (62,839, delta 0.5%), and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (62,738, delta 0.7%). The Ultra X9 388H sits near AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573, delta -0.2%), Intel Core i9-13950HX (44,342, delta 0.3%), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44,309, delta 0.4%), and Intel Core i5-13600 (44,240, delta 0.5%). This suggests the Ultra 7 265HX competes at a higher performance tier overall.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core rendering score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40,642, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18,911, giving the Ultra 7 265HX a 114.9% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ultra X9 388H outperforms the Ultra 7 265HX?

A: Yes, in PassMark physics, the Ultra X9 388H scores 3,226 versus 2,978 for the Ultra 7 265HX, a 7.7% margin. This is the only recorded win for the Ultra X9 388H out of 17 benchmarks.

Q: How close is single-thread performance between the two?

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the Ultra 7 265HX scores 4,500 and the Ultra X9 388H scores 4,280, a 5.1% difference. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is much larger: 5,737 versus 2,200.5, a 160.7% delta.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores indicate about their overall tiers?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX has an average benchmark score of 63,173 and sits in the 93rd percentile, while the Ultra X9 388H averages 44,466 and sits in the 88th percentile. The Ultra 7 265HX is closer in average score to the Intel Core i7-13790F (63,080), while the Ultra X9 388H aligns with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44,573).

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Ultra 7 265HX has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the Ultra X9 388H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The base clocks are 2.60 GHz and 2.10 GHz, respectively.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the stronger performer for the vast majority of workloads. Its wins span rendering, integer math, floating point math, compression, encryption, extended instructions, string sorting, and multi-threaded tasks. The margins are often large, exceeding 30% in many tests and reaching 160.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a single advantage in PassMark physics, with a 7.7% lead. This could make it interesting for specific physics-heavy applications, but the overall average benchmark score difference is decisive: 63,173 versus 44,466. The percentile ranking reinforces this, with the Ultra 7 265HX in the 93rd percentile versus the 88th percentile for the Ultra X9 388H.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, rendering, or data processing, the Ultra 7 265HX is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For those with workloads that specifically rely on physics simulation performance, the Ultra X9 388H offers a measurable, though narrow, advantage. The 16 wins versus 1 win record, combined with the average score gap, leaves little ambiguity about which chip delivers higher overall performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 265HX operates with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost for the Ultra X9 388H.

The thermal design power (TDP) differs significantly: the Ultra 7 265HX is rated at 55 watts, while the Ultra X9 388H is rated at 25 watts. The socket types are different, with the Ultra 7 265HX using Intel BGA 2114 and the Ultra X9 388H using Intel BGA 2540. The Ultra 7 265HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ultra X9 388H does not.

Memory support diverges as well. The Ultra 7 265HX supports DDR5 memory, while the Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the memory bandwidth differs: the Ultra 7 265HX delivers 102.4 GB/s, while the Ultra X9 388H delivers 153.6 GB/s. The PCIe lane count also varies, with the Ultra 7 265HX offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra X9 388H offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 7 265HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390. The release dates place the Ultra 7 265HX in January 2025 and the Ultra X9 388H in January 2026. Part numbers also differ, with the Ultra 7 265HX carrying SRVFH and the Ultra X9 388H carrying SA4QWQ9EK.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectures and come from different generations. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and belongs to the Ultra 7 generation. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the same codename and belongs to the Ultra X9 generation.

Both chips are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The Ultra 7 265HX is fabricated by TSMC, while the Ultra X9 388H is fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 7 265HX has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Ultra X9 388H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache layouts differ in the L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265HX has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ultra X9 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both chips have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core. Neither chip uses 3D V-Cache, and neither supports ECC memory.

The production status for both is listed as Active, and both target the mobile market segment. The Ultra 7 265HX is built on Arrow Lake-HX, which appears oriented toward higher-power mobile computing given its 55-watt TDP, while the Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake-H with a 25-watt TDP, suggesting a lower-power design focus.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins decisively in multi-threaded compute tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 40,642 versus 18,911 (114.9% lead) indicates strong rendering performance. The PassMark multi-thread score of 47,985 versus 36,811 (30.4% lead) confirms this across a broader workload mix. Data-heavy operations favor the Ultra 7 265HX: data compression shows a 41.5% advantage, data encryption a 38.5% advantage, and integer math a 39.7% advantage. Floating point math and extended instructions also favor the Ultra 7 265HX by 43.6% and 36.1%, respectively.

The Ultra 7 265HX also holds the single-core advantage in every recorded test, though the margin varies from 5.1% in PassMark single-thread to 160.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core. This makes it the stronger choice for lightly threaded applications that rely on high clock speeds, given its 5.30 GHz boost clock versus 5.10 GHz for the Ultra X9 388H.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins only in PassMark physics, with a 3,226 score versus 2,978, a 7.7% margin. This suggests its Panther Lake architecture handles physics simulation workloads with greater efficiency, potentially due to architectural differences in instruction handling or cache behavior. The Ultra X9 388H also offers higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound tasks even though the recorded benchmarks do not show a corresponding performance win outside of physics.

For general-purpose computing, the Ultra 7 265HX is the superior processor based on the data. For niche physics-heavy workloads, the Ultra X9 388H provides a measurable edge. The lower TDP of the Ultra X9 388H (25 watts versus 55 watts) may make it more suitable for thermally constrained mobile designs, but the performance penalty is substantial in most categories.