Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus across every recorded benchmark. In 17 head-to-head comparisons, the 290HX Plus wins all of them, with the Core Ultra 9 386H failing to secure a single victory. The average benchmark score reflects this divide: the 290HX Plus scores 79574, while the 386H scores 43210.

The largest single-core advantage appears in Cinebench R20, where the 290HX Plus scores 2992 against the 386H's 1809, a delta of 65.4%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a smaller but still clear lead, with 2356 versus 2071.5, a 13.7% gap. PassMark single-thread results confirm the pattern, with 4951 versus 4218, a 17.4% difference. These results indicate that the 290HX Plus delivers notably higher per-thread performance, which is relevant for lightly threaded workloads.

Multi-core results show even wider margins. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the 290HX Plus a score of 39684, while the 386H scores 20547, a 93.1% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows an 85.6% advantage, with 5981 against 3223. Cinebench R20 multi-core follows with a 65.4% gap, 21198 versus 12820. The PassMark multi-thread test delivers a 67.9% edge, 59439 versus 35399. These numbers indicate that the 290HX Plus roughly doubles the multi-threaded throughput in several tests.

Specialized workloads show consistent wins for the 290HX Plus. PassMark data compression shows 658724 against 352365, a 86.9% advantage. Data encryption scores 50008 versus 27150, an 84.2% lead. Extended instructions deliver 51290 against 29138, a 76% edge. Integer math shows 164839 versus 87284, an 88.9% delta, while floating point math records 201773 against 108527, an 85.9% gap. Random string sorting shows 80327 versus 42135, a 90.6% advantage. Find prime numbers scores 519 versus 341, a 52.2% lead. Physics results are closest, with 3387 against 3028, an 11.9% delta, which is the narrowest margin among all tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, versus 43210 for the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The 290HX Plus sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the 386H sits at the 88th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The 290HX Plus scores 39684, which is 93.1% higher than the 386H's 20547. This is the largest relative multi-core advantage recorded between the two.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The passmark_physics test shows the smallest gap. The 290HX Plus scores 3387, and the 386H scores 3028, a difference of 11.9%.

Q: Does the 386H win any benchmark category?

A: No. The recorded data shows the 290HX Plus winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with zero wins for the 386H.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor based on average score?

A: The 290HX Plus is closest to the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 7413 (0.6% lower), the Intel Core i9-14900K (0.6% higher), and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X (1.4% lower). The 386H is closest to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (0.3% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.5% lower), the Intel Core i9-12900 (0.7% higher), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF (0.9% higher).

Q: How do single-core scores compare between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 290HX Plus scores 2356 versus 2071.5, a 13.7% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the 290HX Plus scores 4951 versus 4218, a 17.4% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different series and generations. The 290HX Plus belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, with the codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh and generation Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX). The 386H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, with the codename Panther Lake and the architecture name Panther Lake, generation Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H).

Both use a 3 nm process node, but the foundries differ. The 290HX Plus is fabricated by TSMC and carries 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm². The 386H is fabricated by Intel, with no transistor or die size data recorded.

The core configurations differ substantially. The 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading, as core count equals thread count in both cases.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 290HX Plus has L1 cache of 192 KB per core, L2 cache of 3 MB per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 386H has the same L1 cache per core at 192 KB, but a smaller L2 cache at 2.5 MB per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support varies. The 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by the 290HX Plus but not by the 386H.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are different. The 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, with no execution unit count recorded.

Specification Differences

The base clock differs: the 290HX Plus runs at 2.70 GHz, while the 386H runs at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the 290HX Plus reaching 5.50 GHz and the 386H reaching 4.90 GHz.

Thermal design power shows a major gap. The 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55, while the 386H has a TDP of 25.

Socket compatibility is distinct. The 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114, and the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 290HX Plus, while the 386H has a locked multiplier.

Release dates differ. The 386H was released on 2026-01-04, and the 290HX Plus was released on 2026-03-16.

Part numbers are recorded as SADSS for the 290HX Plus and SA4R5Q9EH for the 386H.

No launch MSRP is recorded for either processor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as the higher-performing processor. It wins every single recorded comparison, with average scores of 79574 versus 43210. The 95th percentile ranking versus 88th percentile places the 290HX Plus firmly ahead in the overall CPU landscape.

The 290HX Plus offers 24 cores versus 16, a base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. It also carries a larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 18 MB) and supports ECC memory. These specification advantages translate directly into the benchmark results.

The 386H does have advantages in certain areas. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, and it supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory types. Its TDP of 25 is less than half of the 290HX Plus's 55, indicating a more power-efficient design. It also released earlier, on 2026-01-04 compared to 2026-03-16.

The 290HX Plus sits close to high-end desktop parts in its rival group. It is only 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 7413, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900KF, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900K. The 386H, by contrast, scores within 0.9% of the Intel Core i9-12900KF and within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the 290HX Plus is the clear selection. The data shows no scenario where the 386H outperforms it.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every measured category, but the size of the win varies by workload. The largest advantages appear in multi-threaded and data-intensive tasks. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 93.1% lead, random string sorting shows 90.6%, integer math shows 88.9%, and data compression shows 86.9%. These are workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity, both of which favor the 290HX Plus.

The 290HX Plus also wins in single-threaded tasks, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 12% lead, Cinebench R23 single-core shows 13.7%, and PassMark single-thread shows 17.4%. The physics test shows the narrowest gap at 11.9%, indicating that the 386H is relatively closer in this specific area.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not win any benchmark category, but its profile suggests certain use cases where it may be more appropriate. Its lower TDP of 25 indicates substantially lower power draw, which can matter in thin-and-light mobile systems. Its support for LPDDR5X memory and higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s could benefit memory-sensitive tasks, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate this effect. Its smaller core count and lower clocks indicate a design aimed at efficiency rather than peak performance.

The 290HX Plus is positioned for compute-heavy mobile workstations, with its 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, and ECC support. The 386H is positioned for mainstream mobile use, with its lower power envelope and newer Intel Xe3 integrated graphics. The data shows that for maximum performance, the 290HX Plus is the only choice. The 386H's strengths lie in efficiency and platform features, not in benchmark scores.