Intel Arc G3 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the Intel Arc G3?

A: The Intel Arc G3 is a mobile processor from Intel, part of the Panther Lake generation, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, and it carries an integrated Arc B370 GPU.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake architecture and manufactured at TSMC's 3 nm node. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory support?

A: The Arc G3 supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both use a dual-channel memory bus and neither supports ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a shared L3 cache of 36 MB, which is double the 18 MB shared L3 cache found on the Arc G3. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core, while the L2 cache differs: 2.5 MB per core on the Arc G3 versus 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

Q: What do the benchmark percentiles indicate about these processors?

A: The Arc G3 has a percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs, meaning it sits at the midpoint of the database. The Core Ultra 9 275HX ranks at the 94th percentile, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of recorded processors.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The multiplier on the Core Ultra 9 275HX is unlocked, allowing for overclocking. The Arc G3 has a locked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Arc G3 has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The base clock of the Core Ultra 9 275HX is 2.70 GHz versus 1.90 GHz on the Arc G3, and the boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power also separates them: the Arc G3 is rated at 25 W, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX is rated at 55 W.

The socket differs as well. The Arc G3 uses Intel BGA 2540, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114. PCIe connectivity is another clear division: the Arc G3 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core Ultra 9 275HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics solutions are different, with the Arc G3 featuring an Arc B370 and the Core Ultra 9 275HX featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Arc G3 does not. The part numbers are SA4QZ for the Arc G3 and SRVFK for the Core Ultra 9 275HX.

The release dates are also distinct. The Core Ultra 9 275HX was released on 2025-01-12, while the Arc G3 was released later on 2026-05-27. The Arc G3 belongs to the Panther Lake generation, and the Core Ultra 9 275HX belongs to the Arrow Lake-HX generation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split begins with the process node. The Arc G3 is fabricated at Intel's 3 nm node using Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 275HX is also on a 3 nm process, but it is manufactured by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while no transistor or die size data exists for the Arc G3.

Cache hierarchies diverge in L2 and L3. The Arc G3 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. Both share the same L1 allocation of 192 KB per core.

Memory architecture differences extend beyond the memory type. The Arc G3 uses LPDDR5X and records a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, which is higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the Core Ultra 9 275HX, which uses DDR5. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 9 275HX is described as having the Arrow Lake architecture, while the Arc G3 has no recorded architecture field beyond its Panther Lake codename. The production status for both is listed as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Arc G3 and the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The Arc G3 has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. The Core Ultra 9 275HX, by contrast, has a substantial set of measured results across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark tests.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX delivers strong multi-threaded results. It scores 5619.5 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 19899 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 35589 in Cinebench R23 multicore. Single-core results are 334 in Cinebench R15, 2809 in Cinebench R20, and 2204 in Cinebench R23. Geekbench results show a multicore score of 20795 and a single-core score of 2458.

Passmark tests further characterize the Core Ultra 9 275HX. Data compression scores 608381, data encryption scores 47112, and extended instructions score 47016. Prime number finding scores 448, floating point math scores 191186, and integer math scores 155218. The multithread score is 55759, physics scores 3338, and random string sorting scores 74320. Single-thread performance is recorded at 4713 in both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 275HX is 67469, placing it at the 94th percentile across all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all near this score. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 scores 67673, which is 0.3% lower. The AMD EPYC 4484PX scores 67822, 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX scores 67868, 0.6% lower. The Intel Xeon 6515P scores 67006, which is 0.7% higher than the Core Ultra 9 275HX. These tight margins place the Core Ultra 9 275HX squarely among high-end workstation and server-class processors.

Because the Arc G3 has no benchmark scores in the database, no direct quantitative comparison can be made. The data shows that the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the only one of the two with measured performance results, and those results place it at the upper end of the recorded CPU spectrum.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two processors by a wide margin. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores, a 5.40 GHz boost clock, 36 MB of L3 cache, and a benchmark portfolio that earns a 94th percentile ranking. The Arc G3 has 14 cores, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, 18 MB of L3 cache, and sits at the 50th percentile, with no benchmark scores to establish a performance baseline.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX is the processor with measurable performance data. Its average benchmark score of 67469 aligns it with the Xeon w5-3525, EPYC 4484PX, and Threadripper PRO 5955WX, all within a 0.6% band. This indicates the Core Ultra 9 275HX competes at a level typically associated with workstation and server processors, not typical mobile parts.

The Arc G3 is a different class of part. Its 25 W TDP, lower core count, and smaller cache suggest a focus on efficiency rather than raw throughput. Its higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s on the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the one metric where the Arc G3 leads, which could indicate a design tuned for memory-sensitive workloads rather than compute-heavy tasks.

The data does not support a conclusion that the Arc G3 can match the Core Ultra 9 275HX in multi-threaded or single-threaded performance. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has the higher clocks, more cores, more cache, and the only benchmark results in the database. The Arc G3 remains an unmeasured quantity, so any performance claim about it would lack support.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 275HX wins on every benchmark category where data exists. Multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, physics simulation, and data compression benefit from its 24 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of L3 cache. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35589 and Passmark multithread score of 55759 reflect a processor built for sustained parallel workload execution. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for users who want to push clocks beyond the stock 5.40 GHz boost.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The Geekbench single-core score of 2458 and Passmark single-thread score of 4713 indicate strong per-core performance, driven by the 2.70 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost clocks. Applications that depend on one or two fast cores, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity software, would see better responsiveness from this processor.

The Arc G3 claims advantages in specific hardware characteristics. Its memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s is 33% higher than the 102.4 GB/s of the Core Ultra 9 275HX, which could benefit workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as certain data processing tasks or integrated graphics operations. Its 25 W TDP is less than half the 55 W TDP of the Core Ultra 9 275HX, indicating a power profile suited to thinner, lighter mobile systems where thermal and battery constraints matter more than peak compute.

The Arc G3 also carries the Arc B370 integrated GPU, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Without benchmark data for either integrated GPU, the comparison cannot be quantified, but the presence of different iGPU tiers suggests a design split: the Arc G3 pairs a newer GPU tier with a lower-power CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX pairs a 64 EU GPU with a high-core-count CPU.

The 20-lane Gen 5 PCIe connection on the Core Ultra 9 275HX versus the 4-lane Gen 5 connection on the Arc G3 points to another division. The Core Ultra 9 275HX can support more high-speed peripherals, making it suitable for systems with multiple NVMe drives or discrete GPUs. The Arc G3, with only 4 lanes, appears oriented toward compact, integrated designs.

In short, the Core Ultra 9 275HX is the choice for compute-heavy workloads, high clock speeds, and expandability. The Arc G3 is the choice for power-sensitive mobile designs with higher memory bandwidth and a newer integrated GPU tier. The absence of Arc G3 benchmark results leaves its actual performance unverified, but its specification profile positions it as a lower-power alternative rather than a performance competitor.