Core Ultra 7 265HX vs Core Ultra X9 388H
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra X9 388H | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 125 | 132 | -5.3% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 1,598 | 1,343 | +19.0% |
| Cores | 20 (8P+12E) | 16 (4P+12E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 45 | 15 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 48,166 | 36,898 | +30.5% |
- Core Ultra 7 265HX is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 5.3% in single-core and faster by 19.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 45W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 7 265HX or Core Ultra X9 388H?
Core Ultra 7 265HX advantages
- Multi-core speed (+16%)
Core Ultra X9 388H advantages
- Single-core speed (+5%)
- Power efficiency (+67%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 7 265HX if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
- Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Core Ultra 7 265HX vs Core Ultra X9 388H: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 7 265HX — 20-core Intel processor (8P+12E) scoring 125 single-core and 1598 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 45 W TDP.
Core Ultra X9 388H — 16-core Intel processor (4P+12E) scoring 132 single-core and 1343 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 15 W TDP.
Core Ultra 7 265HX vs Core Ultra X9 388H: Core Ultra 7 265HX leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 7 265HX is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 5.3% in single-core and faster by 19.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 45W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core Ultra X9 388H leads there with a single-core score of 132 versus 125, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265HX is stronger, posting 1,598 multi-core against 1,343 in Cinebench 2024. Its 20 cores (8 performance + 12 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra X9 388H is the more efficient chip at 15 W versus 45 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core Ultra 7 265HX better than the Core Ultra X9 388H?
These two are closely matched — the right pick comes down to which specific strengths you value and the price you actually pay. Core Ultra 7 265HX is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 5.3% in single-core and faster by 19.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 7 265HX and the Core Ultra X9 388H?
Core Ultra 7 265HX is slower than Core Ultra X9 388H by 5.3% in single-core and faster by 19.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 45W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 7 265HX if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking. Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.