Intel Core Ultra 9 386H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H records an average benchmark score of 43210, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records 40967. The Ultra 9 386H also holds an 88th percentile rank among all CPUs, versus 87th for the X7 358H.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Ultra 9 386H wins every multi-core Cinebench test. Its largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20547 against 18747 for the X7 358H, a 9.6% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 3223 versus 3027, a 6.5% lead.

Q: Does the X7 358H win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, one test. The X7 358H edges the Ultra 9 386H in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2080 versus 2071.5, a 0.4% margin. The Ultra 9 386H wins the other 16 recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the memory configuration differences?

A: The Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The X7 358H has a higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s, compared to 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9 386H.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The Ultra 9 386H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the X7 358H uses Arc B390. Both are integrated solutions on the same 3 nm Intel process node.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Ultra 9 386H and the X7 358H have a locked multiplier. They also share the same 25 W TDP and the same Intel BGA 2540 socket.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 3 nm process node and share the Panther Lake codename. They belong to the Core Ultra Series 3, with the Ultra 9 386H listed under the "Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H)" generation and the X7 358H under "Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H)". Both have 16 cores and 16 threads, so there is no simultaneous multithreading on either part.

The cache layouts differ in one key area. Both chips have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 18 MB of shared L3 cache, but the L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB on the Ultra 9 386H and 3 MB on the X7 358H. That gives the X7 358H a larger per-core L2 allocation despite the same core count.

Memory support diverges as well. The Ultra 9 386H accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X, whereas the X7 358H is limited to LPDDR5X. Both run dual-channel memory, but the X7 358H delivers a higher memory bandwidth figure at 153.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9 386H. The PCIe configuration also differs: the Ultra 9 386H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes, while the X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9 386H. Its base clock is 2.10 GHz and boost clock is 4.90 GHz, compared to 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the X7 358H. Both parts share the same 25 W TDP, same Intel BGA 2540 socket, and neither supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ, with Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 9 386H and Arc B390 on the X7 358H.

Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status and were released on the same date. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a heavily one-sided matchup. The Ultra 9 386H wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its advantages appear across rendering, cryptography, math workloads, and general multi-threaded performance.

Multi-core rendering is a clear strength for the Ultra 9 386H. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the largest gap at 9.6%, with Cinebench R20 and R15 multi-core trailing at 6.7% and 6.5% respectively. This suggests sustained all-core workloads favor the higher boost clock and configuration of the Ultra 9 386H.

The Ultra 9 386H also leads in PassMark integer math by 5%, floating-point math by 4.5%, and extended instructions by 6.8%. Data compression shows a 6% advantage, and data encryption shows a 4.2% lead. These wins cover both integer-heavy and floating-point-heavy workloads, so the advantage is not limited to a single instruction type.

The X7 358H has exactly one recorded win. It takes Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.4%, scoring 2080 against 2071.5. That is a narrow margin, and the Ultra 9 386H counters with wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (0.7%) and Cinebench R20 single-core (6.7%). In PassMark single-thread tests, the Ultra 9 386H leads by 2.3%.

For buyers who prioritize memory bandwidth, the X7 358H offers a higher figure at 153.6 GB/s. It also carries more L2 cache per core. However, the benchmark data does not show those advantages translating into performance wins in the recorded tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in clock speed, L2 cache, memory support, memory bandwidth, PCIe lanes, and integrated graphics.

The Ultra 9 386H runs at a 2.10 GHz base clock and 4.90 GHz boost clock. The X7 358H runs at 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. Both share a 25 W TDP.

L2 cache differs: 2.5 MB per core on the Ultra 9 386H versus 3 MB per core on the X7 358H. L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, and L3 is identical at 18 MB shared.

Memory support is not the same. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X; the X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only. Memory bus width is dual-channel on both, but bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 9 386H and 153.6 GB/s for the X7 358H.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Ultra 9 386H offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU-only lanes. The X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well: Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 9 386H versus Arc B390 on the X7 358H.

The shared specifications include 16 cores, 16 threads, 3 nm process node, Intel BGA 2540 socket, no ECC support, locked multiplier, and the same release date. Both are mobile-segment parts with Active production status. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Ultra 9 386H comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20547 against 18747 for the X7 358H. That 9.6% gap is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. The same pattern shows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with the Ultra 9 at 12820 versus 12011, a 6.7% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows at 3223 versus 3027, a 6.5% lead.

Single-core results are closer. The X7 358H takes Cinebench R23 single-core by a hair, 2080 versus 2071.5, a 0.4% margin. The Ultra 9 386H wins Cinebench R15 single-core 303.5 versus 301.5, a 0.7% lead, and Cinebench R20 single-core 1809 versus 1695, a 6.7% lead.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra 9 386H's position. Extended instructions show 29138 versus 27274, a 6.8% lead. Data compression shows 352365 versus 332508, a 6% lead. Integer math shows 87284 versus 83147, a 5% lead. Floating-point math shows 108527 versus 103842, a 4.5% lead. Multithread shows 35399 versus 33802, a 4.7% lead. Random string sorting shows 42135 versus 40357, a 4.4% lead.

Data encryption favors the Ultra 9 386H by 4.2%, with scores of 27150 versus 26046. Find prime numbers is close, 341 versus 337, a 1.2% lead. Physics is nearly tied at 3028 versus 3021, a 0.2% lead. PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show 4218 versus 4124, a 2.3% lead.

The average benchmark scores place the Ultra 9 386H at 43210 and the X7 358H at 40967. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 (0.7% behind), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF at 42830 (0.9% behind). The X7 358H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.6% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.6% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G at 40718 (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 (0.7% behind).

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H as the stronger processor in this pairing. It wins 16 of 17 recorded benchmarks and holds a higher average score, 43210 versus 40967. Its multi-core rendering lead is substantial, with a 9.6% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 6.7% in both Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core. Buyers looking at rendering, compression, encryption, or math-heavy workloads should favor the Ultra 9 386H based on these results.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does have one recorded victory: Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.4%. It also carries a higher memory bandwidth figure (153.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s) and more L2 cache per core (3 MB versus 2.5 MB). Those specifications do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data, but they may matter for workloads not covered here.

The Ultra 9 386H also provides more PCIe lanes (12 versus 4 CPU-only Gen 5 lanes) and broader memory support with both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both processors share the same socket, TDP, core count, and process node. For users choosing between these two mobile parts, the benchmark record consistently favors the Ultra 9 386H, with the X7 358H offering only a marginal single-core edge in one test.