Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head results between the Intel Core 5 130UL and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. However, the recorded data for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is extensive, and its percentile ranking relative to all CPUs provides a clear reference point. The Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores, which means all quantitative performance comparisons must be drawn from the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus data alone.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers strong multi-core throughput in Cinebench testing. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score reaches 39,684 points, while its single-core score in the same test is 2,356 points. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 21,198 points with a single-core score of 2,992. The older Cinebench R15 test shows 5,981 points multi-core and 340 points single-core. These results indicate a processor that scales well across thread-heavy workloads, consistent with its 24-core configuration.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus reinforce its positioning. The multi-thread score is 59,439, and the single-thread score is 4,951. Integer math performance reaches 164,839 points, while floating point math scores 201,773. Data compression results are particularly strong at 658,724 points, and data encryption posts 50,008 points. Extended instruction performance is 51,290 points, random string sorting reaches 80,327 points, physics scores 3,387, and the find prime numbers test yields 519 points.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 79,574. Its nearest rivals in the database are all high-end desktop and workstation processors. The Intel Core i9-14900KF has an average score of 79,371, which is 0.3% lower. The Intel Core i9-14900K scores 79,097, a 0.6% deficit. On the other side, the AMD EPYC 7413 averages 80,041 points, putting it 0.6% ahead, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X averages 80,671 points, 1.4% ahead. These narrow deltas place the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus squarely in flagship desktop territory despite its mobile socket designation.

Because the Core 5 130UL lacks any recorded benchmark results, there are no win/loss counts to report. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero. The database shows a complete absence of comparative measurements, so the only meaningful performance statements come from the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus side.

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture for these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a high-performance part with a 95th percentile ranking, an average benchmark score of 79,574, and a nearest rival set composed entirely of top-tier desktop CPUs. The Intel Core 5 130UL has no benchmark scores recorded, a 50th percentile ranking, and an average benchmark score of zero. From the recorded data alone, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the only one of the two with measurable performance evidence.

The Core 5 130UL appears in the database as a desktop processor with 10 cores and 12 threads, a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and a 15 W TDP. It targets a low-power segment, as indicated by its modest thermal envelope. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, by contrast, is a mobile-class part with 24 cores and 24 threads, a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and a 55 W TDP. The gap in core count, thread count, and clock speed is substantial.

For workloads that require multi-core throughput, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice based on its Cinebench and PassMark results. Its single-core scores also indicate strong per-thread performance. The Core 5 130UL offers no recorded performance data, so no workload advantage can be attributed to it from the database.

The Core 5 130UL may suit scenarios where power draw is the primary consideration, given its 15 W TDP compared to 55 W for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. But the data does not include any efficiency metrics, so this remains an inference from the TDP field alone. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also carries a 95th percentile ranking versus the 50th percentile of the Core 5 130UL, which summarizes the overall standing of each part in the database.

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL is at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is at the 95th percentile.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 scores for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39,684 points in multi-core and 2,356 points in single-core in Cinebench R23.

Q: Which processors are the nearest rivals to the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus?

A: The nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 0.3% lower average score, the Intel Core i9-14900K at 0.6% lower, the AMD EPYC 7413 at 0.6% higher, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 1.4% higher.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

The Core 5 130UL uses 10 cores and 12 threads; the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.60 GHz for the Core 5 130UL and 2.70 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. Boost clocks are 4.70 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively.

TDP differs significantly: 15 W for the Core 5 130UL versus 55 W for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The sockets are different as well: the Core 5 130UL uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114.

The Core 5 130UL is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 5 130UL has no listed transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ. The Core 5 130UL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Memory support diverges: the Core 5 130UL supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a listed memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 130UL has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus but not on the Core 5 130UL.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Core 5 130UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 5 130UL does not. The market segments differ: the Core 5 130UL is listed as Desktop, and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is listed as Mobile.

Release dates are different. The Core 5 130UL was released on 2024-04-07. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus was released on 2026-03-16. Both parts are listed with an Active production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 5 130UL is based on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS and a generation label of Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS). The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with the codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh and a generation label of Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX).

The manufacturing process differs by foundry and node. The Core 5 130UL uses a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC, and it records 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The Core 5 130UL has no transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and cache design differ notably. The Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, which implies some cores do not carry their own thread pairing. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the Core 5 130UL versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. Shared L3 is 12 MB versus 36 MB.

Memory architecture also differs. The Core 5 130UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not present for the Core 5 130UL. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, but not on the Core 5 130UL.

The PCIe implementation differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 130UL uses Gen 4 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics represent a generational shift as well. The Core 5 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 80 execution units, an older architecture. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, a newer design despite the lower execution unit count.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, indicating overclocking support, while the Core 5 130UL is locked. The Core 5 130UL is a desktop part on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile part on BGA 2114. These architectural differences align with the performance gap observed in the benchmark data: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a smaller process node, more cores, larger caches, a newer memory standard, and a faster PCIe interface, all of which contribute to its 95th percentile standing.