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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is in a completely different performance class than the Intel Core 3 100UL. The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, but the available measurements for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus establish a clear hierarchy. The Core 3 100UL has no recorded benchmark scores, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers a substantial body of results across rendering, computational, and data-processing workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39,684 points. Its single-core score in the same test is 2,356. The gap between these two figures indicates the processor scales aggressively across its 24 threads, a pattern confirmed by the Cinebench R20 results, where the multi-core score reaches 21,198 and the single-core score is 2,992. The older Cinebench R15 test shows 5,981 multi-core and 340 single-core. These results place the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79,574.

The PassMark suite reinforces the multi-threaded dominance. The multithread score is 59,439, while the single-thread score is 4,951. Data compression hits 658,724, and data encryption reaches 50,008. Extended instruction performance is recorded at 51,290, floating-point math at 201,773, and integer math at 164,839. Physics simulation scores 3,387, random string sorting scores 80,327, and prime number finding scores 519. Every one of these figures comes from the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus alone; the Core 3 100UL has no benchmark entries in the database, so no direct win or loss can be tabulated. The wins count stands at 0 for the Core 3 100UL and 0 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus in the head-to-head field, because no shared tests exist.

Within the nearest rival group, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits just above the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which averages 79,371, a delta of 0.3 percent. It also edges the Intel Core i9-14900K, which averages 79,097, a delta of 0.6 percent. The AMD EPYC 7413 averages 80,041, which puts it 0.6 percent ahead of the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X averages 80,671, which is 1.4 percent ahead. These margins are narrow, indicating that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus competes directly with flagship desktop and server processors, despite being classified as a mobile part.

For the Core 3 100UL, the absence of benchmark data means no comparative analysis can be derived from direct tests. Its percentile rank of 50 places it at the midpoint of the database distribution, but that figure is not backed by measured scores in the record. The clear takeaway from the available data is that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers dramatically higher performance in every measured workload, while the Core 3 100UL offers no recorded performance evidence.

The Verdict

The data points to one processor for demanding workloads: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. Its 24 cores, 24 threads, and 5.50 GHz boost clock combine with a 36 MB L3 cache to produce scores that rank it among the top 5 percent of all CPUs in the database. The 95th percentile standing and an average benchmark score of 79,574 confirm that this is a high-end part by any measured standard.

The Intel Core 3 100UL, by contrast, has no benchmark scores recorded. Its 6 cores, 8 threads, and 4.50 GHz boost clock suggest a modest mainstream desktop processor, and its 50th percentile rank places it at the median of the database, but there is no measured evidence to support a performance verdict. The processor targets a different segment entirely: a 15 W TDP, Intel Socket 1700, and Raptor Lake architecture point to an efficient, low-power desktop option rather than a performance leader.

Users who need heavy multi-threaded compute, such as rendering, data compression, or scientific workloads, should select the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus based on the recorded data. Users who prioritize low power consumption and desktop compatibility would look to the Core 3 100UL, but the database contains no score to validate its performance claims. The verdict from the recorded measurements is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the performance choice, and the Core 3 100UL is an unverified entry in the lower half of the distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 3 100UL uses Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This represents a significant manufacturing advantage for the newer part: the 3 nm node offers higher density and efficiency compared to 10 nm, though the database does not provide direct efficiency measurements.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 100UL has no transistor count or die size recorded. Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Core 3 100UL provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The L3 advantage alone is 26 MB, which directly supports the larger working sets typical of multi-threaded workloads.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 100UL uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both have 64 execution units, but the Arc branding indicates a different GPU architecture within the newer processor. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 3 100UL has no series designation recorded.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 100UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. The newer part also records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 3 100UL has no bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus but not on the Core 3 100UL. PCIe connectivity shows a generational gap: the Core 3 100UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts set the two apart immediately. The Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds favor the larger part: the Core 3 100UL runs at 1.20 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus runs at 2.70 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The boost clock difference is 1.00 GHz, and the base clock difference is 1.50 GHz.

Thermal design power shows the intended usage gap. The Core 3 100UL has a 15 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a 55 W TDP. The socket types are incompatible: the Core 3 100UL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core 3 100UL is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile part.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 100UL does not. Release dates are far apart: the Core 3 100UL launched on 2024-04-07, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus launched on 2026-03-16. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a part number of SADSS, while the Core 3 100UL has an unknown part number. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core 3 100UL boosts to 4.50 GHz, a difference of 1.00 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 100UL has 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 100UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 100UL does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Core 3 100UL has a 15 W TDP. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a 55 W TDP.

Q: Which processor ranks higher in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus ranks at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,574. The Core 3 100UL ranks at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every measured workload category. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 39,684 and R20 multi-core at 21,198 show rendering and 3D content creation strength. PassMark multithread at 59,439, data compression at 658,724, and data encryption at 50,008 show heavy parallel processing capability. Floating-point math at 201,773 and integer math at 164,839 indicate scientific and financial computing performance. The 95th percentile ranking and closeness to the Intel Core i9-14900KF, AMD EPYC 7413, and Intel Xeon w5-2565X confirm that this processor is built for sustained high-end workloads.

The Intel Core 3 100UL has no recorded wins because it has no recorded benchmark scores. Its strengths are positional rather than measured: a 15 W TDP for low power draw, a desktop socket in Intel Socket 1700, support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and a 10 nm process node. The 50th percentile rank places it at the median of the database, but that figure is not tied to any test result in the record. For workloads that demand modest power consumption, desktop compatibility, or legacy memory support, the Core 3 100UL has a structural argument. For any performance-based requirement, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only processor in this comparison with data to support a choice.