Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H claims a single narrow victory. The largest margins appear in multi-core and throughput-oriented workloads, where the 285HX’s additional cores and higher power envelope translate into substantial score advantages.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285HX scores 36429.5 against the 388H’s 18911, a delta of 92.6%. That is nearly double the output and the largest single-test gap in the dataset. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 5656.5 versus 2955, a 91.4% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers a 54.5% lead (20236 versus 13101). These results indicate that heavily threaded rendering workloads scale strongly with the 285HX’s wider core configuration.

The PassMark suite reinforces the multi-core dominance. Data compression scores 631885 for the 285HX versus 361763 for the 388H, a 74.7% gap. Random string sorting shows a 75.4% edge (77196 versus 44010). Floating point math favors the 285HX by 73.3% (194998 versus 112550), while integer math sits at 70.6% (155076 versus 90882). Data encryption posts a 70.5% difference (48567 versus 28490), and extended instructions come in at 64.1% (49148 versus 29943). The PassMark multithread score is 54.6% higher on the 285HX (56902 versus 36811).

The 285HX also wins every single-threaded comparison except one, though by far smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core is the sole 388H victory: 2200.5 versus 2187.5, a 0.6% edge. That is a narrow result, but it shows the Panther Lake design can match or slightly exceed Arrow Lake in lightly threaded Cinebench work despite its lower clock ceiling. Elsewhere, the 285HX leads Cinebench R15 single-core by 4.5% (323.5 versus 309.5) and Cinebench R20 single-core by 54.5% (2856 versus 1849). The R20 single-core delta is anomalously large compared to the other single-core tests, indicating a workload-specific sensitivity rather than a general single-thread advantage of that magnitude.

PassMark single-thread scores put the 285HX at 4618 versus 4280 for the 388H, a 7.9% lead. PassMark physics follows at 7.7% (3476 versus 3226), and find prime numbers shows a 28.5% gap (460 versus 358). The compression, encryption, sorting, and math workloads all point to the same conclusion: the 285HX delivers roughly 55% to 75% more throughput in parallel integer and floating-point tasks, while single-thread differences stay in the low single digits to low double digits.

Average benchmark scores place the 285HX at 76155, against 44466 for the 388H. The 285HX sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 388H ranks at the 88th percentile. The 285HX’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, scores 76212, a 0.1% difference, meaning the 285HX and that chip are effectively tied in aggregate performance. The 388H, by contrast, trades almost exactly with the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 (0.2% difference) and the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.3% difference). The aggregate data therefore places the two processors in different competitive tiers despite sharing the Intel brand.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and foundries. The 285HX uses Arrow Lake, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The 388H uses Panther Lake, codename Panther Lake, and is fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm process. Both use a 3 nm node, but the design families and manufacturing sources differ.

Core counts diverge sharply. The 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading in the recorded data. The 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. That 8-core difference explains much of the multi-core score gap. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and L2 is also the same at 3 MB per core. L3 differs: the 285HX has 36 MB shared, while the 388H has 18 MB shared. The 285HX therefore carries twice the last-level cache.

The 285HX records a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 388H runs at 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The 285HX has the higher clocks on both ends. TDP also differs: 55 W for the 285HX versus 25 W for the 388H. The socket changes as well, with the 285HX on Intel BGA 2114 and the 388H on Intel BGA 2540.

Memory support differs by type and bandwidth. The 285HX supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 388H supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The 388H’s memory bandwidth is 50% higher, which is notable given its lower core count and TDP. ECC support is present on the 285HX but absent on the 388H.

PCIe lanes diverge significantly. The 285HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 388H uses Arc B390. The 285HX has an unlocked multiplier; the 388H does not. Production status is Active for both. Release dates are recorded as 2025-01-12 for the 285HX and 2026-01-04 for the 388H. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing statement is possible.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the 285HX: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The 388H has no transistor or die size data in the database. The part numbers differ as well: SRVFJ for the 285HX and SA4QWQ9EK for the 388H.

The Verdict

The data separates the two processors into distinct roles. The 285HX is the performance leader in nearly every recorded workload. Its 91.4% Cinebench R23 multi-core advantage and 74.7% data compression lead indicate that applications using many threads will see large gains. The 388H cannot close the multi-core gap despite its higher memory bandwidth. The 285HX also holds single-thread leads in most tests, with the 388H’s 0.6% Cinebench R23 single-core win being the only exception.

The 388H’s strengths are contextual. Its 25 W TDP and 4-lane PCIe configuration point toward a lower-power mobile design. Its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the 285HX’s 102.4 GB/s, which may benefit memory-bound tasks that fit within its core count. The integrated Arc B390 graphics likely serve a different segment than the 285HX’s Arc Xe-LPG 64EU part, though the database records no graphics benchmarks for either.

For users prioritizing raw compute, the 285HX is the clear choice. It delivers 54.5% to 92.6% more multi-core performance depending on the test, and it sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The 388H, at the 88th percentile, is competitive with mid-range desktop and mobile parts like the Intel Core i9-13950HX, but it does not approach the 285HX’s aggregate score of 76155 versus 44466.

The 285HX’s unlocked multiplier, ECC support, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes add platform flexibility. The 388H’s locked multiplier and 4 lanes limit expansion. The 388H does offer newer integrated graphics and higher memory bandwidth, but those features do not offset the core-count deficit in the recorded CPU benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L3 cache | 36 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Arc B390 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part number | SRVFJ | SA4QWQ9EK |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 95 | 88 |

| Average benchmark score | 76155 | 44466 |

L1 and L2 cache are identical: 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core respectively. Both are dual-channel mobile processors with Active production status. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

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

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 285HX scores 36429.5 versus 18911 for the 388H, a 92.6% advantage.

Q: Does the 388H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the 388H wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 2200.5 versus 2187.5 for the 285HX, a 0.6% edge.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth numbers compare?

A: The 388H has 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth with LPDDR5X support, while the 285HX has 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 support. Both use a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 285HX supports ECC memory. The 388H does not.

Q: How do their aggregate scores and percentiles differ?

A: The 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155 and sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The 388H has an average score of 44466 and sits at the 88th percentile.