Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus records an average benchmark score of 61834, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records 43210. The Ultra 7 sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 88th percentile for the Ultra 9.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus scores 41913 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 104% higher than the Ultra 9 386H's 20547. This is the largest multi-core delta recorded between the two processors.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus delivers 5917 in Cinebench R23 single-core, against 2071.5 for the Ultra 9 386H. That is a 185.6% advantage for the Ultra 7, the biggest single-core gap in the entire benchmark set.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither chip uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus is matched most closely by the Intel Core i9-13900KF with an average score of 61841 and a 0% delta. The Ultra 9 386H is closest to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 with an average score of 43326 and a -0.3% delta.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Ultra 9 386H boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Ultra 7 also has a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with the codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh and a generation label of Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX). The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake architecture, and carries the generation label Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H). Both processors are built on a 3 nm process node, but the foundry differs: TSMC produces the Ultra 7, while Intel produces the Ultra 9. The Ultra 7 lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the database records no transistor count or die size for the Ultra 9.

The two processors use different sockets. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus mounts in Intel BGA 2114, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. The Ultra 7 is an unlocked part with a 55 W TDP, whereas the Ultra 9 is locked with a 25 W TDP. The cache hierarchy also separates the two. Both share a 192 KB L1 per core, but the L2 per core is 3 MB on the Ultra 7 versus 2.5 MB on the Ultra 9. The shared L3 is 30 MB on the Ultra 7 and 18 MB on the Ultra 9. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Memory support is not identical. The Ultra 7 supports DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both run dual-channel memory, but the Ultra 7 records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and the Ultra 9 records 115.2 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor supports ECC memory. The release dates place the Ultra 9 at 2026-01-04 and the Ultra 7 at 2026-03-16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. No benchmark in the set favors the Ultra 9.

Multi-core rendering workloads show a large gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 4224 against 3223, a 31.1% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core widens the margin to 37.3%, with scores of 17603 versus 12820. The extreme case is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 7 posts 41913 against 20547, a 104% lead. The doubling in R23 indicates a substantial throughput difference under sustained all-core load.

Single-core results tell a similar story, but with even larger relative gaps. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 596 versus 303.5, a 96.4% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2485 versus 1809, a 37.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core records the largest delta in the entire comparison: 5917 versus 2071.5, or 185.6% in favor of the Ultra 7. The PassMark single-thread test is far closer, at 4764 versus 4218, a 12.9% lead. The single-core Cinebench deltas are unusually wide, suggesting a major per-core frequency or IPC difference in those specific workloads.

PassMark integer and floating-point math workloads both favor the Ultra 7 heavily. Floating-point math scores 163567 versus 108527, a 50.7% lead, while integer math scores 122449 versus 87284, a 40.3% lead. Extended instructions follow at 39283 versus 29138, a 34.8% lead. Prime number finding shows 482 versus 341, a 41.3% lead. Data compression records 493179 versus 352365, a 40% lead, and data encryption records 37813 versus 27150, a 39.3% lead. Random string sorting sits at 60020 versus 42135, a 42.4% lead.

PassMark multithread scores 48270 versus 35399, a 36.4% lead. PassMark physics scores 3843 versus 3028, a 26.9% lead. The physics delta is the smallest multi-core margin recorded, though it still clearly favors the Ultra 7. The average benchmark score difference is also decisive: 61834 for the Ultra 7 versus 43210 for the Ultra 9.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields. Core count is 20 for the Ultra 7 versus 16 for the Ultra 9. Thread count is 20 versus 16. Base clock is 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz. Boost clock is 5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP is 55 W versus 25 W. Socket is Intel BGA 2114 versus Intel BGA 2540. The architecture field is null for the Ultra 7 but lists Panther Lake for the Ultra 9. The codename is Arrow Lake-HX Refresh versus Panther Lake. The generation is Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX) versus Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H). The series is Core Ultra Series 2 versus Core Ultra Series 3.

The foundry differs: TSMC for the Ultra 7, Intel for the Ultra 9. Transistor count is 17,800 million for the Ultra 7 and null for the Ultra 9. Die size is 243 mm² for the Ultra 7 and null for the Ultra 9. L2 cache per core is 3 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache is 30 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support is DDR5 for the Ultra 7 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 20 versus 12, both Gen 5 CPU-only. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ultra 7 and locked on the Ultra 9. Release dates differ as recorded. Part numbers also differ.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of each win rather than by any reversal. Rendering workloads are the strongest case for the Ultra 7. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 104% lead, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 185.6% lead. Users running CPU-bound render tasks would see the largest relative benefit from the Ultra 7.

Math-heavy and data-heavy workloads also favor the Ultra 7. Floating-point math leads by 50.7%, integer math by 40.3%, and data compression by 40%. Encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, and random string sorting all sit between 34.8% and 42.4% ahead. These are consistent, broad wins across different instruction types.

The smallest margins appear in PassMark single-thread and PassMark physics. The single-thread test shows a 12.9% lead, and physics shows a 26.9% lead. Even in these closer areas, the Ultra 7 remains ahead. The Ultra 9 386H does not hold a win in any recorded workload, but its lower TDP of 25 W, its support for LPDDR5X memory, and its higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s are the only recorded areas where it differs favorably. Those are specification advantages, not benchmark wins.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the faster processor in every measured workload. It leads in all 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds a 93rd percentile rank versus the 88th percentile for the Ultra 9, and records an average benchmark score of 61834 against 43210. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7, such as the Intel Core i9-13900KF at 61841, confirm that it sits in a different performance class than the Ultra 9, whose closest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326.

The Ultra 7 achieves this with 20 cores versus 16, a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, a larger 30 MB L3 cache versus 18 MB, and an unlocked multiplier. It also uses a 3 MB L2 per core versus 2.5 MB. The Ultra 9 counters with a lower 25 W TDP, LPDDR5X memory support, and higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, but no benchmark in the database reflects a performance benefit from those traits.

Buyers focused purely on compute performance should select the Ultra 7 270HX Plus. The largest wins come in Cinebench R23, where the multi-core score doubles the Ultra 9 and the single-core score nearly triples it. The Ultra 9 386H is the appropriate choice only for systems where the lower 25 W TDP and LPDDR5X support are mandatory requirements, since the recorded performance data does not show any workload where it surpasses the Ultra 7. The verdict from the measurements is unambiguous: the Ultra 7 270HX Plus delivers the higher performance across the board, while the Ultra 9 386H offers specification-level advantages in power and memory flexibility without any benchmark victory.