Intel Core Ultra 9 386H vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H vs Intel Processor N150

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H and Intel Processor N150 occupy opposite ends of the mobile performance spectrum. The data confirms a complete wipeout: the Ultra 9 386H wins all four head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 98.2% to 693.2%. The N150 sits in the 28th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 386H lands in the 88th percentile, a gap that reflects their entirely different design goals. The Core Ultra 9 386H is a high-end mobile processor built for sustained heavy workloads, while the Intel Processor N150 is an ultra-low-power part aimed at basic tasks and long battery life.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins every single benchmark category recorded in the database. Its most dominant victory comes in multi-threaded rendering: in Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 20,547 against the N150's 2,590.5, a 693.2% advantage. The margin is nearly identical in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Ultra 9 386H delivers 3,223 points versus 422.5, a 662.8% lead. These results indicate the Ultra 9 386H is designed for workloads that scale across many cores, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation.

Single-thread performance also favors the Ultra 9 386H, though by a smaller factor. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,071.5 against 935, a 121.6% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 98.2% advantage, with scores of 303.5 and 153.15 respectively. This means the Ultra 9 386H is not just faster in parallel tasks; it also has a substantial edge in lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software.

The Intel Processor N150 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head benchmark. Its only advantage is qualitative: a 6 W TDP versus 25 W, and a much less demanding platform. The N150 is positioned for fanless designs, embedded systems, and entry-level laptops where absolute performance is secondary to power consumption and thermals. The database shows no scenario where the N150 outperforms the Ultra 9 386H in raw computational throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different Intel design families. The Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, classified under Alder Lake-N, fabricated on a 10 nm process. This process node difference, 3 nm versus 10 nm, is one of the largest architectural gaps in the current Intel mobile lineup.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading, so thread counts equal core counts. The cache hierarchy reflects the core disparity: the Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 386H also has a much higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 3.60 GHz, and a base clock of 2.10 GHz versus 0.10 GHz.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Ultra 9 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 386H's memory bandwidth is exactly three times the N150's, which matters for integrated graphics performance and memory-intensive workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Ultra 9 386H uses Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes, while the N150 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multicore test delivers the largest recorded margin between the two processors. The Ultra 9 386H scores 20,547, while the N150 manages 2,590.5, producing a delta of 693.2%. This result is consistent with the 16-core versus 4-core configuration; the Ultra 9 386H has exactly four times the cores, and the benchmark scales accordingly. The Ultra 9 386H's average benchmark score of 43,210 confirms its position among high-end mobile chips, sitting within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465.

The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 3,223 for the Ultra 9 386H versus 422.5 for the N150, a 662.8% delta. This older test still demonstrates the massive throughput gap. In single-core tests, the Ultra 9 386H leads by 98.2% in R15 (303.5 vs 153.15) and by 121.6% in R23 (2,071.5 vs 935). The single-core advantage is smaller than the multicore advantage, indicating that the Ultra 9 386H's higher boost clock and newer architecture contribute meaningfully, but the core count is the dominant factor.

The N150's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, Intel Core i3-4340, AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, and Intel Core i7-5650U, with average scores between 1,024 and 1,027. The Ultra 9 386H's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, Intel Core i9-12900, and Intel Core i9-12900KF, with average scores between 42,830 and 43,431. The two processors do not share any comparable rivals, which illustrates their distinct market positions.

Specification Differences

The Core Ultra 9 386H and Processor N150 differ in nearly every specification field. The Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads; the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz versus 0.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.90 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. TDP is 25 W for the Ultra 9 386H and 6 W for the N150. The Ultra 9 386H uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264.

Process nodes are 3 nm for the Ultra 9 386H and 10 nm for the N150. Cache configurations differ: the Ultra 9 386H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3; the N150 has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support covers DDR5 and LPDDR5X on the Ultra 9 386H versus DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 on the N150. Memory bus widths are dual-channel versus single-channel, with bandwidths of 115.2 GB/s and 38.4 GB/s respectively.

PCIe generations and lane counts differ: Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the Ultra 9 386H, Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the N150. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 9 386H and UHD Graphics 730 on the N150. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates are 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 9 386H and 2024-11-19 for the N150. The part numbers are SA4R5Q9EH and SRPNR respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 386H scores 20,547 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a 693.2% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the lead is 662.8% (3,223 vs 422.5).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Ultra 9 386H leads by 121.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,071.5 vs 935) and by 98.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (303.5 vs 153.15).

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Ultra 9 386H has a 25 W TDP, while the N150 has a 6 W TDP.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 386H has 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus, exactly three times the N150's 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The Ultra 9 386H is in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the N150 is in the 28th percentile.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the superior processor in every measured benchmark, with margins between 98.2% and 693.2%. Its 16 cores, 4.90 GHz boost clock, 18 MB L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for demanding mobile workloads such as rendering, content creation, and heavy multitasking. Its average benchmark score of 43,210 places it among high-end mobile chips, within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-12900.

The Intel Processor N150, with 4 cores, a 3.60 GHz boost clock, 6 MB L3 cache, and 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivers a fraction of the performance at a fraction of the power. Its 6 W TDP and 10 nm process make it appropriate for low-power, fanless, or embedded systems where the 25 W TDP of the Ultra 9 386H would be impractical. The N150's average benchmark score of 1,025 places it near the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, processors from a much older era.

For any application where raw computational performance matters, the Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice. For systems where power consumption and thermal output are the primary constraints, the N150 serves a purpose the Ultra 9 386H cannot match. The two processors do not compete in the same market segment; the benchmark data simply confirms that the Ultra 9 386H is in a different performance class entirely.