Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records an average benchmark score of 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 100HL averages 23545, which puts it in the 76th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39684 versus 14948 for the Core 3 100HL, a 62.3% advantage. The Core Ultra 9 also leads by 70.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (21198 vs 6278) and by 74.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5981 vs 1506).

Q: Does the Core 3 100HL win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every single test. The Core 3 100HL records zero wins.

Q: What are the socket and platform differences?

A: The Core 3 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700 with PCIe Gen 4 (8 CPU lanes), while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114 with PCIe Gen 5 (20 CPU lanes). The Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Core Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 3 100HL integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the Core 3 100HL. The Core Ultra 9 also has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Core 3 100HL is built on Raptor Lake-PS architecture using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, and uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC. This process advantage is substantial: the Core Ultra 9 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 100HL has no published transistor or die size data in the database.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 3 100HL provides 8 cores and 12 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers 24 cores and 24 threads, suggesting a design without simultaneous multithreading where each core contributes one thread. The cache hierarchy reflects the scale difference. The Core 3 offers 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3, tripling the last-level cache.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 100HL accepts both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with a rated memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure the Core 3 does not list. ECC memory is absent on the Core 3 but present on the Core Ultra 9. The Core Ultra 9 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 is locked.

The platform targets differ. The Core 3 100HL is a desktop part on Socket 1700 with 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile processor on BGA 2114 with 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The integrated graphics also reflect the newer platform: Arc Xe-LPG with 64 EU versus Iris Xe with 48 EU.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus outperforms the Intel Core 3 100HL in every single benchmark recorded in the database, winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score difference is stark: 79574 versus 23545, a gap that places the Core Ultra 9 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs while the Core 3 sits at the 76th percentile.

For workloads dominated by multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 9 is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 is 62.3% ahead of the Core 3's 14948. In PassMark multi-thread, the Core Ultra 9 delivers 59439 versus 17586, a 70.4% advantage. Data compression shows a 69.3% lead (658724 vs 202225), and integer math favors the Core Ultra 9 by 65.8% (164839 vs 56308).

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 9, though by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2356 versus 2110, a 10.4% difference. PassMark single-thread records 4951 versus 3735, a 24.6% gap. The Core Ultra 9 also leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 37.6% (340 vs 212) and Cinebench R20 single-core by 70.4% (2992 vs 886).

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the appropriate selection for users who need maximum compute throughput, whether multi-threaded rendering, encryption, or floating-point math. The Core 3 100HL, with its lower core count and older architecture, suits scenarios where the platform itself (Socket 1700, DDR4 compatibility, desktop form factor) matters more than peak performance. The data does not indicate any workload category where the Core 3 100HL comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 100HL | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Generation | Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-03-16 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | unknown | SADSS |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates every recorded comparison. The largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 scores 519 versus 48 for the Core 3 100HL, a 90.8% advantage. This test measures integer-heavy prime number searching, and the gap reflects both the core count difference and the architectural efficiency of the newer 3 nm design.

Floating-point math shows a 79.1% lead for the Core Ultra 9 (201773 vs 42108). Data encryption follows closely at 76.1% (50008 vs 11964), and extended instructions show a 75.7% gap (51290 vs 12463). These PassMark results indicate that the Core Ultra 9's advantages extend beyond raw core count into specialized instruction throughput.

Cinebench results confirm the pattern across multiple versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 scores 5981 versus 1506, a 74.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 21198 versus 6278, a 70.4% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the relative margin to 62.3% (39684 vs 14948), suggesting that the newer benchmark version compresses the scaling difference slightly, though the absolute gap remains enormous.

PassMark physics records 3387 for the Core Ultra 9 versus 928 for the Core 3, a 72.6% lead. Random string sorting shows 80327 versus 23223, a 71.1% gap. PassMark multi-thread delivers 59439 versus 17586, matching the 70.4% figure seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core. Integer math at 164839 versus 56308 represents a 65.8% advantage, the smallest of the multi-threaded PassMark tests but still a decisive margin.

Single-core benchmarks reveal a tighter but still consistent lead for the Core Ultra 9. PassMark single-thread shows 4951 versus 3735, a 24.6% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows this to 10.4% (2356 vs 2110). Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 37.6% lead (340 vs 212), and Cinebench R20 single-core records a 70.4% gap (2992 vs 886). The R20 single-core result is unusually large compared to the other single-core tests, suggesting that this particular workload scales particularly well with the Core Ultra 9's higher boost clock and newer microarchitecture.

Data compression in PassMark shows 658724 for the Core Ultra 9 versus 202225 for the Core 3, a 69.3% lead. This test benefits from the larger L3 cache (36 MB vs 12 MB) and the higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s available on the Core Ultra 9.

The nearest rival data places each processor in different competitive tiers. The Core 3 100HL sits within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H and within 1.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, by contrast, trades within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-14900K and within 0.3% of the Core i9-14900KF, while also sitting within 1.4% of the Intel Xeon w5-2565X and 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 7413. These rival groupings show that the Core 3 100HL competes in the upper-midrange desktop and mobile space, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus operates at the top end of consumer and workstation performance.

All 17 head-to-head comparisons list the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as the winner. The closest margin is Cinebench R23 single-core at 10.4%, and the widest is PassMark find prime numbers at 90.8%. The Core 3 100HL records no wins in any test category.