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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. No benchmark in the shared test suite favors the mobile part. The margins vary from a modest single-core gap to massive multicore and data-processing leads.

The largest advantage appears in PassMark random string sorting, where the 285K scores 94,927 against 42,135, a delta of 125.3%. Data compression shows a similar story: 790,052 versus 352,365, a 124.2% lead. These are workloads where the desktop chip's higher core count and larger shared cache deliver outsized returns.

Multicore rendering tests reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 285K posts 42,522 points against 20,547 for the 386H, a 106.9% advantage. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 6,494 versus 3,223, a 101.5% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore records 24,003 versus 12,820, an 87.2% gap. The desktop part roughly doubles mobile performance in these threaded workloads.

Floating-point math follows suit: PassMark floating point math scores 224,324 for the 285K and 108,527 for the 386H, a 106.7% delta. Integer math is close behind at 97.5%, with scores of 172,379 and 87,284. Extended instructions show a 113.7% lead (62,277 versus 29,138), and data encryption a 112.7% lead (57,745 versus 27,150). Prime number finding, a latency-sensitive workload, still favors the desktop part by 58.7% (541 versus 341).

Single-core results are closer but still favor the 285K. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,377 versus 2,071.5, a 14.7% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core records 359 versus 303.5, an 18.3% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a larger 87.3% gap (3,388 versus 1,809), which stands out as an anomaly relative to the other single-core tests. PassMark single-thread scores 5,087 versus 4,218, a 20.6% lead.

The PassMark multithread score confirms the overall trend: 67,260 versus 35,399, a 90% delta. PassMark physics shows 3,938 versus 3,028, a 30.1% lead, which is the smallest multicore margin in the suite. Across all tests, the 285K's average benchmark score is 83,807, while the 386H sits at 43,210. The 285K sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the 386H sits at the 88th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not allocate any benchmark win to the 386H. Every recorded comparison in the shared test set favors the 285K. The practical analysis therefore focuses on the magnitude of the gap across workload types.

For heavily threaded production work, the 285K is the clear choice. Rendering tasks in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 show roughly 87% to 107% improvements. Data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads show even larger gaps, ranging from 112.7% to 124.2%. These are workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity, and the 285K's configuration dominates.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the 285K still leads, but the margin is narrower. Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark single-thread both show around 14.7% to 20.6% leads. Cinebench R20 single-core is the outlier at 87.3%, but the other two single-core tests suggest the architectural advantage in lightly threaded work is more modest, roughly 15% to 21%.

The 386H's role in the comparison is defined by its absence of wins. It does not outperform the 285K in any shared test. Its strengths, if any, would have to appear in workloads not covered by the benchmark suite, but the database records no such case. The 386H does sit close to its own nearest rivals: it trails the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 by 0.5%, while leading the Intel Core i9-12900 by 0.7% and the Intel Core i9-12900KF by 0.9%. That places it in a competitive mobile segment, but not in the same performance class as the 285K.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and target different market segments. The 285K is a desktop part from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The 386H is a mobile part from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. The 285K uses the Intel Socket 1851, while the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540, which is a soldered mobile package.

Both chips are manufactured on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ. The 285K is fabricated by TSMC, while the 386H is fabricated by Intel. The 285K has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The database does not list transistor count or die size for the 386H.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part uses simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds reflect the desktop versus mobile split: the 285K has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 285K has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 386H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Cache configurations also differ. Both parts list 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 285K has 3 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 386H has 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop part therefore has both more L2 per core and double the L3 capacity.

Memory support shows a split. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory buses. The 386H additionally supports LPDDR5X. The 386H has a higher recorded memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the 285K. The 285K supports ECC memory; the 386H does not. PCIe lanes differ as well: the 285K offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 386H offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The 285K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 285K has an unlocked multiplier, while the 386H does not. The 285K was released on 2024-10-23, and the 386H on 2026-01-04. The 285K has a launch MSRP of $589. The database does not list a launch MSRP for the 386H.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H in every recorded test. The average benchmark score of 83,807 versus 43,210 places the desktop part roughly 94% higher overall. The 285K also ranks higher in the database percentile at 96, compared to 88 for the 386H.

The 285K is the appropriate selection for users who need maximum multicore throughput, particularly in rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point workloads, where leads range from roughly 87% to 125%. Its higher core count, larger L3 cache, higher clocks, and unlocked multiplier all support that role. The 386H does not win any shared benchmark, so no workload class in the recorded data favors it.

The 386H remains a competitive mobile processor within its own segment. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 0.3% ahead, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 0.5% ahead, and the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF, which it leads by 0.7% and 0.9% respectively. That context matters for mobile buyers, but it does not change the head-to-head result.

The 285K also holds its own against its nearest rivals in the database. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus by 0.2% and the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.5%, while leading the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 0.9% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1%. Those are server-class comparisons, which indicates the 285K sits in a high-performance tier that the mobile 386H does not approach.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records zero wins.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark random string sorting, where the 285K scores 94,927 versus 42,135, a delta of 125.3%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The 285K leads in every single-core test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.7% lead, Cinebench R15 single-core shows 18.3%, and PassMark single-thread shows 20.6%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a larger 87.3% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. The 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 3 nm process. The 285K is fabricated by TSMC, while the 386H is fabricated by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 285K supports ECC memory. The 386H does not. Both support DDR5, with the 386H adding LPDDR5X support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | Intel Core Ultra 9 386H |

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

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

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Panther Lake |

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

| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not listed |

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2024-10-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | Not listed |