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

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data delivers a completely one-sided result. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. There is no test in the database where the mobile part takes the lead, and the margins are substantial in nearly every category.

The Ultra 7 265KF dominates multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 49736 versus 20547, a 142.1% advantage. The single-core gap is even larger there, 7021 versus 2071.5, which is 238.9% ahead. These are not incremental differences; they represent entirely different performance tiers.

The Ultra 9 386H is not without merits, but they do not show up in wins. Its strongest relative showing comes in PassMark physics, where it trails by only 20% (3633 versus 3028). The single-thread PassMark gap is also comparatively modest at 16.8% (4928 versus 4218). These closer margins indicate the mobile chip's architecture holds up better in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks than in sustained throughput.

The data compression and random string sorting tests both show an 89.2% edge for the Ultra 7 265KF. Data encryption trails at 77.5%, extended instructions at 87.1%, and floating point math at 74.5%. The pattern is consistent: the desktop chip excels everywhere, but the smallest deltas appear in workloads that rely on per-core efficiency rather than raw core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines and target different physical formats. The Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851, built on Arrow Lake-S with a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Ultra 9 386H is a mobile chip on Intel BGA 2540, using Panther Lake with a 3 nm process from Intel's own foundry.

Core counts differ. The Ultra 7 265KF provides 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts on both.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The Ultra 7 265KF has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H matches the L1 at 192 KB per core but drops to 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger shared cache on the desktop part contributes to its multi-threaded lead.

Clock speeds reflect their power envelopes. The Ultra 7 265KF runs a 3.90 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost with a 125 W TDP. The Ultra 9 386H runs a 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost with a 25 W TDP. The base clock difference is particularly stark, 3.90 versus 2.10 GHz, which explains much of the sustained workload gap.

Memory support also differs. Both use dual-channel buses, but the Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s. The mobile chip's higher bandwidth does not compensate for its lower core count and clocks in the recorded tests.

PCIe lane counts differ. The desktop part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, the mobile part Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, while the Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The desktop chip has an unlocked multiplier; the mobile chip does not.

The Ultra 7 265KF also carries a larger transistor count, 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. The Ultra 9 386H has no disclosed transistor or die size in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Ultra 7 265KF scores 7021, the Ultra 9 386H scores 2071.5, a 238.9% delta. This is the clearest signal that the desktop architecture delivers far higher per-core throughput. The boost clock difference, 5.50 versus 4.90 GHz, is part of it, but the base clock gap of 3.90 versus 2.10 GHz suggests the mobile part cannot sustain high frequencies under load.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 142.1% delta (49736 versus 20547). The 20-core desktop chip with 30 MB of L3 overwhelms the 16-core mobile chip with 18 MB of L3. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 55.5% delta (5013 versus 3223), while R20 multi-core shows 62.9% (20889 versus 12820). The older R15 test compresses the gap because it is shorter and less sensitive to sustained power delivery, but the desktop part still wins clearly.

Single-core results across Cinebench versions show widening deltas with newer tests. R15 single-core: 707 versus 303.5, a 132.9% delta. R20 single-core: 2948 versus 1809, a 63% delta. R23 single-core: 238.9% delta. The R23 result stands out as an outlier, suggesting the mobile chip's power management limits its peak frequency during that workload.

PassMark tests show a similar hierarchy. Multi-thread: 58518 versus 35399, a 65.3% delta. Integer math: 143351 versus 87284, a 64.2% delta. Floating point math: 189431 versus 108527, a 74.5% delta. Extended instructions: 54513 versus 29138, an 87.1% delta. Data compression: 666589 versus 352365, an 89.2% delta. Random string sorting: 79735 versus 42135, an 89.2% delta. Data encryption: 48198 versus 27150, a 77.5% delta.

The narrowest margins are PassMark physics (20% delta, 3633 versus 3028) and PassMark single-thread (16.8% delta, 4928 versus 4218). These two results indicate the Ultra 9 386H closes some ground when the workload is short, lightly threaded, and does not stress the memory subsystem. Find prime numbers shows a 42.5% delta (486 versus 341), a middle-ground result.

The database records 17 wins for the Ultra 7 265KF and zero for the Ultra 9 386H. Every single head-to-head comparison favors the desktop part.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It leads by double digits in most tests and by over 200% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Ultra 9 386H cannot match it in any measured workload.

The Ultra 7 265KF sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 71910. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX (0.2% higher average score), Intel Xeon 6517P (0.6% lower), Intel Xeon 6724P (0.7% lower), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 (0.8% higher). These deltas are all under 1%, placing the Ultra 7 265KF in a tightly contested desktop performance tier.

The Ultra 9 386H sits at the 88th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 43210. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (0.3% lower), AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.5% lower), Intel Core i9-12900 (0.7% higher), and Intel Core i9-12900KF (0.9% higher). The mobile chip competes with last-generation desktop parts, not with the current desktop flagship tier.

The choice depends on platform. The Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP, an unlocked multiplier, and no integrated graphics. The Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, fixed multiplier, and integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics. Anyone building a desktop system with a discrete GPU should take the Ultra 7 265KF based on these results. Anyone needing a mobile processor with integrated graphics must use the Ultra 9 386H, accepting its lower benchmark scores.

The launch MSRP for the Ultra 7 265KF is $379. The Ultra 9 386H has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins none.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 7 265KF scores 7021 versus 2071.5, a 238.9% delta.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 7 265KF scores 4928 versus 4218, a 16.8% delta. PassMark physics is close behind at a 20% delta.

Q: Do both processors support multithreading?

A: No. Both have equal core and thread counts, 20 cores and 20 threads for the Ultra 7 265KF and 16 cores and 16 threads for the Ultra 9 386H, indicating no simultaneous multithreading support.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Ultra 7 265KF has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Ultra 9 386H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 20 | 16 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

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

| 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 | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not disclosed |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not disclosed |