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

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 51310 compared to 43210 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The 285T sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 386H sits at the 88th percentile. The desktop-oriented 285T is the stronger compute part across nearly every measured workload, with its most significant advantages appearing in multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering tests. The 386H, a mobile part, holds only two wins: PassMark extended instructions and PassMark physics. Users requiring maximum processing throughput for rendering, encryption, or integer-heavy tasks should select the 285T. The 386H presents a viable alternative only for workloads that specifically benefit from its physics score or extended instruction handling, or where the mobile form factor and lower 25 TDP are mandatory constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 33573 against 20547 for the 386H, a 63.4% advantage. The single-core gap is even more pronounced: 4739 versus 2071.5, a 128.8% delta. This pattern holds across Cinebench R15 and R20, with the 285T leading by 5% and 10% in multi-core, and 57.2% and 10% in single-core respectively. The 285T also wins PassMark integer math by 51.7% (132433 versus 87284), floating point math by 27.1% (137923 versus 108527), and data encryption by 18.1% (32061 versus 27150).

The 386H wins PassMark extended instructions with a score of 29138 versus 27477, a 5.7% margin. It also wins PassMark physics, scoring 3028 against 2842, a 6.1% advantage. These two wins indicate the 386H's architecture handles vectorized extension workloads and physics simulation more efficiently relative to its overall compute capacity. However, these are isolated results. The 386H trails in PassMark data compression by 9% (352365 versus 384140), random string sorting by 13.2% (42135 versus 47695), and multithread by 12.8% (35399 versus 39931).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments. The 285T belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, uses Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename), and is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851. The 386H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, uses Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake codename), and is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540. Both use a 3 nm process node, but the 285T is fabricated by TSMC while the 386H is fabricated by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports hyper-threading based on the thread counts matching core counts. The 285T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The 386H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The higher base clock on the 386H does not translate into performance wins, suggesting the 285T's higher boost clock and additional cores carry its benchmark results.

Cache configurations also differ. Both parts have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 285T has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 386H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The 285T's larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 18 MB) likely contributes to its multi-threaded advantages. The 285T also has a larger die size at 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors; the 386H's die size and transistor count are not recorded.

Memory support differs. The 285T supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 285T supports ECC memory; the 386H does not. PCIe lane counts also differ: the 285T offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 386H offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 285T has a launch MSRP of $549. The 386H has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285T scores 4739 versus 2071.5 for the 386H, a 128.8% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the 285T scores 4576 versus 4218, an 8.5% advantage.

Q: Does the 386H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. The 386H wins PassMark extended instructions (29138 versus 27477, a 5.7% margin) and PassMark physics (3028 versus 2842, a 6.1% margin).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The 285T has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 support. The 386H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the average benchmark score gap?

A: The 285T has an average benchmark score of 51310, while the 386H has an average score of 43210. The 285T also has a higher percentile ranking at 91st versus 88th for the 386H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark win for the 285T occurs in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4739 against 2071.5 for the 386H, a 128.8% delta. This is the most dramatic discrepancy in the entire comparison. The same test in multi-core shows a 63.4% advantage (33573 versus 20547). Cinebench R15 single-core also shows a massive gap: 477 versus 303.5, a 57.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core both show 10% advantages for the 285T (14100 versus 12820, and 1990 versus 1809 respectively). Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 5% advantage (3384 versus 3223).

PassMark results follow a similar but less extreme pattern. Integer math shows a 51.7% advantage for the 285T (132433 versus 87284). Floating point math shows a 27.1% advantage (137923 versus 108527). Data encryption shows an 18.1% advantage (32061 versus 27150). Random string sorting shows a 13.2% advantage (47695 versus 42135). Multithread shows a 12.8% advantage (39931 versus 35399). Data compression shows a 9% advantage (384140 versus 352365). Single-thread shows an 8.5% advantage (4576 versus 4218, recorded twice in the database). Find prime numbers shows a narrow 1.2% advantage (345 versus 341).

The 386H's wins are smaller in magnitude. Extended instructions show a 5.7% advantage (29138 versus 27477). Physics shows a 6.1% advantage (3028 versus 2842). These two wins do not offset the 285T's dominance in the other fifteen tests. When comparing the 285T to its nearest rivals in the database, it sits 0.6% above the Intel Core i9-14900T, 1.1% above the Intel Core i7-13850HX, and 1.2% above the AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT, while trailing the Intel Core i9-13900F by 0.8%. The 386H sits 0.7% above the Intel Core i9-12900 and 0.9% above the Intel Core i9-12900KF, while trailing the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 by 0.3% and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 by 0.5%. These nearest-rival deltas are small, indicating both processors are tightly clustered with their direct competitors despite their large divergence from each other.