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

FAQ

Q: Which processor holds the higher percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T sits at the 91st percentile, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H ranks at the 88th percentile. The 285T also posts a higher average benchmark score of 51310 against 44466 for the 388H.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports hyperthreading, as thread counts match core counts.

Q: Which processor uses a larger shared L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly half the capacity. Both use 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core.

Q: How do the two chips compare in memory bandwidth despite the mobile part having a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the DDR5-based Intel Core Ultra 9 285T. The 388H also has a lower 25 W TDP versus the 35 W TDP of the desktop part.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T scores 33573 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's 18911 by a 77.5% margin. This is the largest multi-core delta in the recorded head-to-head data.

Q: Does the mobile processor win in any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in PassMark extended instructions, find prime numbers, and physics tests. Its extended instructions score of 29943 beats the 285T's 27477 by 8.2%, and its physics score of 3226 beats 2842 by 11.9%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T dominates the head-to-head comparison with 14 wins out of 17 recorded benchmark tests. Its victories span nearly every major workload category, from Cinebench rendering tests to PassMark math and sorting workloads. The most decisive win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 285T scores 4739 against 2200.5, a 115.4% advantage. That margin is exceptional and indicates a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle single-threaded workloads under this specific test.

The desktop part also shows strong multi-core leadership in Cinebench R23, posting 33573 versus 18911, a 77.5% gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 285T wins by 14.5% with 3384 against 2955. The Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core tests both show a 7.6% edge for the 285T, with scores of 14100 versus 13101 and 1990 versus 1849 respectively. PassMark integer math delivers a 45.7% win for the 285T, scoring 132433 against 90882. Floating point math also favors the desktop chip by 22.5%, with 137923 versus 112550.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H claims three wins, all in PassMark tests. The physics test shows the largest margin for the mobile part, 3226 versus 2842, an 11.9% lead. Extended instructions go to the 388H by 8.2%, with scores of 29943 versus 27477. The find prime numbers test is the narrowest win for the 388H, 358 versus 345, a 3.6% margin. These wins cluster around specialized instruction execution and physics simulation, suggesting the Panther Lake architecture handles those specific workloads more efficiently despite lower raw core counts.

The pattern is clear: the 285T wins where thread count, cache capacity, and sustained multi-core throughput matter, while the 388H wins in targeted instruction-heavy and physics-based tasks. The overall average benchmark score confirms the 285T's broader strength, 51310 versus 44466.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel generations and use different underlying architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is built on Arrow Lake, specifically the Arrow Lake-S variant, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses Panther Lake, specifically Panther Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3. Both are fabricated on a 3 nm process, but the foundries differ: TSMC produces the 285T, while Intel produces the 388H.

The transistor count and die size are recorded only for the 285T, which has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No corresponding data exists for the 388H in the database. The core counts diverge significantly, with the 285T offering 24 cores against the 388H's 16 cores. L3 cache also differs, 36 MB shared on the 285T versus 18 MB shared on the 388H. L1 and L2 cache configurations are identical at 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core.

Memory support separates the two as well. The 285T uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The 388H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe lane counts differ dramatically: the 285T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. This reflects the intended usage model, a desktop platform with expansion capacity versus a mobile platform with limited external connectivity.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 285T carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, while the 388H carries Arc B390. The socket types are entirely different: the 285T uses Intel Socket 1851 for desktop installation, and the 388H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package. The production status for both is Active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ, 24 versus 16, with both processors matching thread count to core count. Base clock speeds differ: the 285T runs at 1.40 GHz, while the 388H runs at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, 5.40 GHz for the 285T and 5.10 GHz for the 388H. TDP values place the 285T at 35 W and the 388H at 25 W.

L3 cache capacity differs as noted, 36 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support differs in type, DDR5 for the 285T and LPDDR5X for the 388H, and in bandwidth, 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on the 285T and absent on the 388H. PCIe lanes differ, 20 versus 4. The integrated graphics units differ, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Arc B390. The 285T has a recorded launch MSRP of $549, while the 388H has no launch MSRP recorded. The 285T has a release date of 2025-01-06, while the 388H is dated 2026-01-04. The 285T lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the 388H has no recorded values for either. The market segments differ, Desktop for the 285T and Mobile for the 388H. Part numbers are SRQD3 for the 285T and SA4QWQ9EK for the 388H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the widest gaps between the two processors. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 285T scores 4739 against 2200.5, a 115.4% lead. This is the largest percentage delta in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 multi-core also heavily favors the 285T, 33573 versus 18911, a 77.5% difference. The R15 single-core test shows a 54.1% advantage for the 285T, with 477 versus 309.5. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the 285T a 14.5% win, 3384 versus 2955. The R20 tests show identical 7.6% margins in both single-core, 1990 versus 1849, and multi-core, 14100 versus 13101.

PassMark integer math is another major win for the 285T, 132433 versus 90882, a 45.7% margin. Floating point math follows with a 22.5% lead, 137923 versus 112550. Data encryption shows a 12.5% advantage for the 285T, 32061 versus 28490. Data compression gives the 285T a 6.2% win, 384140 versus 361763. The PassMark multi-thread test shows an 8.5% lead for the 285T, 39931 versus 36811. Random string sorting favors the 285T by 8.4%, 47695 versus 44010. Single-thread PassMark results give the 285T a 6.9% edge, 4576 versus 4280, and the duplicate singlethread entry confirms the same numbers.

The 388H wins are concentrated in three PassMark tests. Physics shows the largest margin for the mobile chip, 3226 versus 2842, an 11.9% lead. Extended instructions go to the 388H by 8.2%, 29943 versus 27477. Find prime numbers is the closest test overall, with 358 versus 345, a 3.6% margin for the 388H. These wins do not offset the overall average benchmark gap, where the 285T leads 51310 to 44466. The nearest rivals for the 285T include the Intel Core i9-14900T at 51015 (0.6% behind) and the Intel Core i9-13900F at 51730 (0.8% ahead). The 388H sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 (0.2% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.3% behind).