Core Ultra X9 388H vs Core i9 14900KS
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra X9 388H | Core i9 14900KS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 132 | 144 | -8.3% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 1,343 | 2,443 | -45.0% |
| Cores | 16 (4P+12E) | 24 (8P+16E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 15 | 150 | — |
| PassMark CPU Mark | 36,898 | 60,019 | -38.5% |
- Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 45.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 150W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra X9 388H or Core i9 14900KS?
Core Ultra X9 388H advantages
- Power efficiency (+90%)
Core i9 14900KS advantages
- Single-core speed (+8%)
- Multi-core speed (+45%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the Core i9 14900KS if you mainly game or want snappy everyday responsiveness.
Core Ultra X9 388H vs Core i9 14900KS: which should you choose?
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 i9 14900KS — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 144 single-core and 2443 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 150 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
Core Ultra X9 388H vs Core i9 14900KS: Core i9 14900KS leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 45.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 150W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core i9 14900KS leads there with a single-core score of 144 versus 132, 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 i9 14900KS is stronger, posting 2,443 multi-core against 1,343 in Cinebench 2024. Its 24 cores (8 performance + 16 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 150 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 X9 388H better than the Core i9 14900KS?
Core i9 14900KS is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 45.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra X9 388H and the Core i9 14900KS?
Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than Core i9 14900KS by 8.3% in single-core and slower by 45.0% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 150W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build. Choose the Core i9 14900KS 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.