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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus across all 17 benchmark comparisons, with no wins recorded for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The largest single margin appears in PassMark random string sorting, where the desktop part scores 96,945 against 42,135, a 130.1% advantage. This indicates a substantial lead in memory-access-heavy workloads, likely reflecting the combination of higher core count, larger shared cache, and the desktop platform's memory subsystem.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads show similarly large gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 44,253 versus 20,547, a 115.4% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern at 106.5% ahead (6,656 versus 3,223). These results confirm that the 24-core desktop processor is more than twice as fast in heavily parallel CPU rendering tasks compared to the 16-core mobile part.

The gap narrows considerably in single-threaded tests, though the desktop chip still leads comfortably. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,439 versus 2,071.5, a 17.7% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 5,068 versus 4,218, a 20.2% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core is the closest margin on the board at 16.6% (354 versus 303.5). The higher boost clock of the Ultra 7 270K Plus (5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz) explains part of this lead, but the per-core L2 cache difference also matters: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core.

The largest percentage gap appears in data compression: 804,322 versus 352,365, a 128.3% advantage. Integer math shows a 101.6% lead (175,986 versus 87,284), and extended instructions show 117.9% (63,506 versus 29,138). These workload types benefit from both core count and cache capacity, so the combined advantages of the desktop chip produce near-doubling or better performance.

PassMark data encryption shows a 117.7% lead (59,097 versus 27,150), while floating-point math sits at 111.5% (229,491 versus 108,527). Find prime numbers shows the smallest multi-core gap at 80.4% (615 versus 341), but even here the desktop part nearly doubles the mobile result. PassMark physics shows a 34.2% advantage (4,064 versus 3,028), the second-smallest margin after the single-core tests. PassMark multithread lands at 93.7% (68,574 versus 35,399).

The overall average benchmark score reflects this hierarchy: 93,785 for the Ultra 7 270K Plus versus 43,210 for the Ultra 9 386H. The desktop part sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the mobile part reaches the 88th percentile. The nearest rival for the Ultra 7 270K Plus is the Intel Xeon 6520P with a 0% delta, and the AMD EPYC 4564P trails by 1.5%. The Ultra 9 386H sits closest to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at -0.3%, with the Intel Core i9-12900 just 0.7% ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and by how much?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins with a score of 44,253 against 20,547 for the Ultra 9 386H, a 115.4% advantage.

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap as large as the multi-thread gap?

A: No. The closest single-thread margin is Cinebench R15 at 16.6% (354 versus 303.5). PassMark single-thread shows a 20.2% lead (5,068 versus 4,218), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 17.7% (2,439 versus 2,071.5). These are much smaller than the multi-core margins, which often exceed 100%.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare between the two?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93,785, while the Ultra 9 386H averages 43,210. The desktop chip performs at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, the mobile chip at the 88th percentile.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap recorded?

A: PassMark random string sorting shows the largest percentage gap at 130.1%, with the Ultra 7 270K Plus scoring 96,945 versus 42,135 for the Ultra 9 386H.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Ultra 9 386H comes close to the Ultra 7 270K Plus?

A: The closest results are in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 16.6% gap, and PassMark single-thread shows 20.2%. PassMark physics also stays relatively close at 34.2% (4,064 versus 3,028).

Q: Does the Ultra 9 386H win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The record shows 17 wins for the Ultra 7 270K Plus and 0 wins for the Ultra 9 386H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel product generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a desktop part from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with TSMC as the foundry at a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor from Core Ultra Series 3, built on the Panther Lake architecture with Intel as the foundry, also at 3 nm. Both use the same process geometry, but the transistor count and die size are only listed for the desktop part: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No transistor or die size data appears for the mobile chip.

Core counts differ significantly. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts in both cases. The cache hierarchy also differs. Both parts share the same 192 KB L1 per core, but the L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the desktop chip versus 2.5 MB per core on the mobile chip. The L3 cache is 36 MB shared on the desktop part versus 18 MB shared on the mobile part, a doubling of the last-level cache.

Clock speeds favor the desktop chip substantially. The base clock is 3.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and the boost clock is 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. These figures help explain the single-thread performance advantage, while the core count and cache differences drive the multi-thread results. The desktop chip has a 125 W TDP, while the mobile chip is rated at 25 W, reflecting the different thermal envelopes of desktop and mobile platforms.

Memory support shows some divergence. Both chips support DDR5 and use a dual-channel memory bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 386H adds LPDDR5X support, which is common for mobile platforms. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 7 270K Plus but not on the Ultra 9 386H. PCIe lane counts also differ: the desktop chip provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the mobile chip provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 7 270K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The socket and packaging are unrelated: the desktop chip uses Intel Socket 1851, the mobile chip uses Intel BGA 2540. The desktop multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking, while the mobile multiplier is locked. The desktop part carries the part number SA4V6, the mobile part SA4R5Q9EH.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy between these two products, but they are not direct competitors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP, 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, and an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and a locked multiplier. The desktop part wins every benchmark in the recorded head-to-head set, with margins ranging from 16.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 130.1% in PassMark random string sorting.

The benchmark data indicates that the Ultra 7 270K Plus should be selected for workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput on a desktop platform. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, near the Intel Xeon 6520P and ahead of several AMD EPYC server processors. The mobile Ultra 9 386H, despite its lower absolute scores, still reaches the 88th percentile overall, with its nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and the Intel Core i9-12900. For a 25 W mobile part, the single-thread scores (4,218 in PassMark, 2,071.5 in Cinebench R23) are comparatively strong, but they remain 17.7% to 20.2% behind the desktop chip in the same tests.

The specific workload profile matters. For compression, encryption, and integer math, the Ultra 7 270K Plus more than doubles the mobile part's throughput. For physics simulation and single-thread tasks, the gap narrows to 16.6% to 34.2%. The choice between these processors is dictated by platform: the desktop chip requires Socket 1851 and a 125 W cooling solution, while the mobile chip is soldered via BGA 2540 and fits a 25 W thermal envelope. Neither processor is a substitute for the other in terms of form factor or upgrade path.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Series: Core Ultra Series 2 (270K Plus) versus Core Ultra Series 3 (386H)
• Codename: Arrow Lake Refresh versus Panther Lake
• Architecture: None listed for the desktop part versus Panther Lake for the mobile part
• Cores: 24 versus 16
• Threads: 24 versus 16
• Base clock: 3.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz
• TDP: 125 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 17,800 million versus not listed
• Die size: 243 mm² versus not listed
• L2 cache: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 5, 12 CPU lanes
• Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2026-03-10 versus 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $299 versus none listed
• Multiplier unlocked: Yes versus No
• Part number: SA4V6 versus SA4R5Q9EH