Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX across all 17 benchmark comparisons, with zero wins for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The margin of victory varies widely by workload, ranging from a modest 5.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core to an 83.2% advantage in PassMark random string sorting.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads reveal the largest performance gaps. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285HX scores 36429.5 against 20547 for the 386H, a 77.3% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: 20236 versus 12820, a 57.8% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result is even more lopsided in percentage terms, with the 285HX at 5656.5 and the 386H at 3223, producing a 75.5% lead for the larger chip.

PassMark workloads amplify the multi-core gap further. Floating point math shows a 79.7% advantage (194998 versus 108527), integer math a 77.7% edge (155076 versus 87284), and data compression a 79.3% lead (631885 versus 352365). Data encryption follows at 78.9% (48567 versus 27150), extended instructions at 68.7% (49148 versus 29138), and random string sorting at 83.2% (77196 versus 42135). The PassMark multi-thread metric shows a 60.7% difference (56902 versus 35399).

Single-threaded results are far closer, though the 285HX still wins every test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a 5.6% delta (2187.5 versus 2071.5), and Cinebench R15 single-core is similarly tight at 6.6% (323.5 versus 303.5). PassMark single-thread records a 9.5% gap (4618 versus 4218). The 285HX also leads PassMark physics by 14.8% (3476 versus 3028) and prime number finding by 34.9% (460 versus 341).

The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the 285HX sits at 76155 versus 43210 for the 386H. In percentile terms, the 285HX ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 386H lands in the 88th percentile. The 285HX's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (0.1% lower average score), AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (0.4% lower), and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (0.5% lower), with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D 0.5% higher. The 386H, by contrast, sits near 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).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the base clock difference between the two?

A: The 285HX has a base clock of 2.80 GHz, while the 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz. The boost clocks are 5.50 GHz for the 285HX and 4.90 GHz for the 386H.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare?

A: The 285HX has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both use 192 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: 3 MB per core for the 285HX versus 2.5 MB per core for the 386H.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The 285HX supports DDR5 only, while the 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the memory bandwidth differs: 102.4 GB/s for the 285HX versus 115.2 GB/s for the 386H.

Q: Is ECC memory supported?

A: The 285HX supports ECC memory; the 386H does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155, compared to 43210 for the 386H. The 285HX also achieves a higher percentile ranking at 95 versus 88.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different generations and architectures. The 285HX is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The 285HX is manufactured by TSMC and has a documented transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. The 386H is manufactured by Intel, and the database records no transistor count or die size for it.

The core counts differ substantially: 24 cores and 24 threads for the 285HX versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 386H. Neither processor uses Hyper-Threading, as core and thread counts match. The L2 cache layout also differs: 3 MB per core on the 285HX versus 2.5 MB per core on the 386H. The L3 cache is doubled on the 285HX at 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support diverges as well. The 285HX supports DDR5 only and lacks LPDDR5X support, while the 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 386H has a higher memory bandwidth rating at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the 285HX, despite the latter having more cache and cores. ECC memory is available on the 285HX but not on the 386H.

PCI Express lanes also differ. The 285HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, while the 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: the 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114, and the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 285HX has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the 386H does not. Production status is listed as active for both.

Release dates place the 285HX earlier: 2025-01-12 versus 2026-01-04 for the 386H. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts represent the clearest specification gap: 24 cores and 24 threads for the 285HX versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 386H. Base clocks differ by 0.70 GHz (2.80 versus 2.10), and boost clocks differ by 0.60 GHz (5.50 versus 4.90). The thermal design power differs significantly: 55 W for the 285HX versus 25 W for the 386H.

The cache hierarchy shows differences at L2 and L3: 3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core.

Memory support differs in type: the 285HX supports only DDR5, while the 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 386H (115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), despite the 285HX having a larger cache. ECC support is present only on the 285HX.

PCI Express lane count differs: 20 lanes for the 285HX versus 12 lanes for the 386H, both Gen 5 and CPU-only. The integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. The sockets differ: Intel BGA 2114 versus Intel BGA 2540. The multiplier is unlocked on the 285HX and locked on the 386H. The foundry differs: TSMC versus Intel. The 285HX has a documented transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the 386H has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Release dates differ by roughly a year: 2025-01-12 for the 285HX and 2026-01-04 for the 386H. The part numbers differ as well: SRVFJ for the 285HX and SA4R5Q9EH for the 386H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is based on the magnitude of its advantages rather than any reversal of leadership.

For heavily multi-threaded workloads, the 285HX is the clear choice. Rendering tasks in Cinebench R23 multi-core show a 77.3% advantage, and PassMark multi-thread shows a 60.7% lead. Data compression, encryption, integer math, and floating point math all show advantages above 68%, with the largest gap in random string sorting at 83.2%. The 24-core configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache provides the foundation for these results. The 285HX also supports ECC memory, which may matter for data-integrity-sensitive workloads.

For single-threaded tasks, the 285HX still wins, but the margin narrows considerably. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 5.6% lead, and PassMark single-thread shows a 9.5% lead. The higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz likely contributes here, though the 386H's lower TDP of 25 W may allow it to sustain performance in thermally constrained chassis. The 386H's higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s could benefit memory-bound workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate that variable.

The 386H's advantages are architectural rather than performance-based. It supports LPDDR5X memory, which may enable more compact system designs. It has a lower TDP of 25 W versus 55 W, which may suit thinner laptops or fanless configurations. It uses Intel's own 3 nm process and the newer Panther Lake architecture. However, the benchmark data shows no workload where the 386H outperforms the 285HX.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the superior processor by every measured metric. It wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds a 95th percentile ranking versus the 386H's 88th, and delivers an average benchmark score of 76155 versus 43210. The 285HX offers 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, ECC memory support, and an unlocked multiplier.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, while competitive in single-threaded tests, falls behind by margins ranging from 5.6% to 83.2% depending on the workload. Its 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 4.90 GHz boost clock place it in a lower performance tier. Its advantages are limited to a lower TDP of 25 W, LPDDR5X memory support, and higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Users prioritizing maximum compute throughput across rendering, encryption, compression, or math-heavy applications should select the 285HX. The benchmark deltas are substantial and consistent. Users constrained by power budgets or requiring LPDDR5X support may consider the 386H, but the performance cost is steep: roughly 43% lower average benchmark score. The 285HX's nearest rivals in the database are AMD parts with similar average scores, indicating it competes at the high end of the mobile CPU spectrum, while the 386H sits closer to desktop i9-12900-class parts.