OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£4,990PassMark multi-core score:36147N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2540TDP (Thermal design power):25 W

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 84% of models
Score components

40%

8.2

Technical score

25%

7.2

Reviews score

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 84% of processors
5.7

Value for money

Value for money
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
8.2

Technical score

Technical score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 89%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 59%
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Best prices
    N/A~ £4,990
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

Technical score
Technical score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components:

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

8.2
Reviews score
7.2
User score
?
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.7
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2540
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.9 GHz which is higher than that of 73.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.1 GHz & 8x 1.6 GHz
PassMark multi-core score
36,147
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 36,147 in PassMark, which is higher than 90.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
2 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 2 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 99.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 18A
L3 cache
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
?
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
9,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 9,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-9600 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Xe3 Graphics
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 72.1% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 25 W which is lower than that of 75.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
25 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 25 W which is lower than that of 74.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
80 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 80 W which is higher than that of 54.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 9 386H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.09x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,098 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,098 vs 5,209
  • 3.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (36,147 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    36,147 vs 11,469
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 65.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,228 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,228 vs 2,558
  • 87.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,882 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,882 vs 1,535
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 83.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (2 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    2 nm vs 12 nm
  • 7.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.2 vs 6.7
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.09x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (16,098 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    16,098 vs 5,209
  • 3.15x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (36,147 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    36,147 vs 11,469
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 65.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,228 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,228 vs 2,558
  • 87.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,882 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,882 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 11.4% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 83.3% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (2 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    2 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (9600 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    9,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 3.28x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    153.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 44.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    25 W vs 45 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 40.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 19.96x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is more expensive than the average processor (£4,990 vs £250).
    £4,990 vs £250
  • 19.96x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is more expensive than the average processor (£4,990 vs £250).
    £4,990 vs £250
  • 28% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has worse value for money than the average processor (5.73 vs 7.3).
    5.73 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA2540 vs FP5).
    FCBGA2540 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 8 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    20 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Panther Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 40.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 18A vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 18A vs Intel 14 nm
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x4/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Xe3 Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Xe3 Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 25% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (80 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    80 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Brand video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
bloghtpc.com
≈ estimated
01/04/2026
Hands-on test · Compact mini PC
Verdict
The MSI Cubi NUC AI+ 3MG with Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is a palm-sized mini PC with strong efficiency and two 2.5G ports, but its graphics are basic.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

  • Its 16 cores, 4 of them performance cores, handle many programs at once.
  • A 4.9 GHz boost clock speeds up demanding single tasks.
  • Memory at 9600 MHz with 153.6 GB/s keeps data moving quickly.
  • Up to 128 GB of memory suits very large projects.
  • Big.LITTLE design sends light tasks to the smaller cores.
  • Configurable power lets the device maker choose how hard the chip runs.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 9 386H

  • Only 4 graphics execution units make built-in graphics weak.
  • Multithreading is missing, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • L3 cache of 1.1 MB per core is small for cache-heavy work.
  • An 80 W boost means more heat under heavy load.
  • Memory overclocking is not possible.

Verdict

A 128 GB capacity and 9600 MHz memory make the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H a good fit for memory-heavy work. Its 16 cores include 4 performance cores, and the boost clock reaches 4.9 GHz. It is made on a 2 nm process, and its power level can be configured for quieter or faster running. Base power is 25 W, and boost pushes it to 80 W, so heavy bursts run hot. The graphics are the weak spot, with only 4 execution units, so this chip is not built for gaming. Multithreading is missing, so each core runs a single thread, and the L3 cache is only 1.1 MB per core. It suits a buyer who needs quick single tasks and lots of memory, and who does not expect strong graphics.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 9 386H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 9 386H and other processors

No results found