Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no directly paired benchmark runs for the Intel Core 7 160HL and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, average score, or percentile ranking in the database, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a full set of Cinebench and Passmark results. This absence of direct data means the comparison must rely on the recorded specifications and the available benchmark profile of the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers strong measured performance across the board. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score stands at 39684, with a single-core score of 2356. The Cinebench R20 results show 21198 multi-core and 2992 single-core. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core score reaches 5981, and the single-core score is 340. These scores place the chip at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating it outperforms the vast majority of recorded processors.

Passmark results for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus further characterize its capabilities. Integer math scores 164839, floating point math scores 201773, and extended instructions score 51290. Data compression reaches 658724, data encryption scores 50008, and random string sorting hits 80327. The multi-thread Passmark score is 59439, with a single-thread score of 4951. The physics test records 3387, and the find prime numbers test scores 519. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 79574.

Because the Core 7 160HL has zero recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. There are no wins to attribute to the Core 7 160HL in the database, and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus holds all measured performance data. The wins count shows 0 for the Core 7 160HL and 0 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus in the head-to-head array, which is consistent with the absence of paired tests.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus shows a narrow margin. It sits 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900KF in average score, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900K, and 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 7413. The Intel Xeon w5-2565X leads it by 1.4%. These deltas are small, indicating that the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus competes at the top tier of desktop and workstation processors despite its mobile market segment designation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying design. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also lists a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus does not use simultaneous multithreading, as its thread count equals its core count, whereas the Core 7 160HL has 6 additional threads over its core count. Clock speeds also favor the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, compared to 2.50 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost for the Core 7 160HL.

Cache hierarchies are larger on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. It has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 160HL has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160HL does not.

Memory support and PCIe connectivity differ significantly. The Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, with no recorded bandwidth figure. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but records a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes are more numerous and newer on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, which has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) on the Core 7 160HL.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 7 160HL fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114. The market segments also differ, with the Core 7 160HL listed as Desktop and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins on raw multi-core throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 and Passmark multi-thread score of 59439 indicate strong parallel processing capability. The 24 cores and 24 threads provide a high thread count for heavily parallel workloads such as rendering, encoding, and scientific computation. The larger 36 MB L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache support data-intensive tasks. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth further aids workloads that stream large datasets.

Single-core performance also favors the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2356, Cinebench R20 single-core score of 2992, and Passmark single-thread score of 4951 all point to high per-thread efficiency. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz is the highest recorded between the two processors, which helps in lightly threaded applications like legacy software, web browsing, and certain productivity tools.

The Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark data, so no wins can be assigned to it from measured results. Its specifications, however, suggest where it might hold advantages in a qualitative sense. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration with a 5.20 GHz boost clock provides a capable multi-threaded foundation. The support for DDR4 memory makes it compatible with existing platforms, and the Desktop market segment with Socket 1700 targets conventional desktop builds. The Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units offers more execution units than the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, which could translate to better integrated graphics compute in certain scenarios, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also wins on production status and feature set. ECC memory support, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and an unlocked multiplier are all advantages for workstation and enthusiast use cases. The Core 7 160HL has a locked multiplier and lacks ECC support.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Core count: 14 for the Core 7 160HL versus 24 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. Thread count: 20 versus 24. Base clock: 2.50 GHz versus 2.70 GHz. Boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP: 45 watts versus 55 watts. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2114. Architecture: Raptor Lake versus null (though codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh is recorded). Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Transistors: not recorded versus 17,800 million. Die size: not recorded versus 243 mm².

Cache: L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core is 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared is 24 MB versus 36 MB. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory: false versus true. PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Release date: 2024-04-07 versus 2026-03-16. Multiplier unlocked: false versus true. Part number: unknown versus SADSS.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a higher percentile ranking at 95 versus 50 for the Core 7 160HL. The average benchmark score is 79574 for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, while the Core 7 160HL has an average score of 0. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a nearest rivals list with four entries, while the Core 7 160HL has none.

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 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of the two processors?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz and 2.50 GHz, respectively.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574. It is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900KF, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900K, 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 7413, and 1.4% behind the Intel Xeon w5-2565X.

Q: Does the Core 7 160HL have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the Core 7 160HL, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a full set of Cinebench and Passmark scores.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but only the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 160HL does not support ECC and has a locked multiplier.