Core Ultra X9 388H vs M3 Ultra
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra X9 388H | M3 Ultra | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 132 | 133 | -0.8% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 1,343 | 2,753 | -51.2% |
| Cores | 16 (4P+12E) | 32 (24P+8E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 15 | 140 | — |
- Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than M3 Ultra by 0.8% in single-core and slower by 51.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 140W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra X9 388H or M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra X9 388H advantages
- Power efficiency (+89%)
M3 Ultra advantages
- Multi-core speed (+51%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra X9 388H if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
Core Ultra X9 388H vs M3 Ultra: 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.
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core Ultra X9 388H vs M3 Ultra: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than M3 Ultra by 0.8% in single-core and slower by 51.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 140W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The M3 Ultra leads there with a single-core score of 133 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 M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 1,343 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 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 140 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 M3 Ultra?
M3 Ultra takes the overall edge, though Core Ultra X9 388H wins in specific areas worth weighing. Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than M3 Ultra by 0.8% in single-core and slower by 51.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra X9 388H and the M3 Ultra?
Core Ultra X9 388H is slower than M3 Ultra by 0.8% in single-core and slower by 51.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra X9 388H draws less power (15W vs 140W 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 M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
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.