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

Intel Core 7 160UL and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupy different ends of Intel’s current lineup. The 160UL is a 10-core, 12-thread desktop part built on Raptor Lake-PS, while the 290HX Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile flagship from the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh family. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Ultra 9 winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. This analysis covers where each processor fits, what separates them architecturally, and what the numbers indicate for real-world workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Ultra 9 also carries a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 1.80 GHz for the 160UL.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare overall?

A: The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574 and ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 160UL scores 14232 on average and sits in the 69th percentile. The performance gap is roughly 5.6 times in favor of the Ultra 9.

Q: What is the difference in process technology?

A: The Core 7 160UL uses Intel’s 10 nm process with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. The Ultra 9 also has a documented memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, whereas the 160UL’s memory bandwidth is not recorded.

Q: Which processor has faster single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is significantly faster in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2356 versus 1325 for the Core 7 160UL, a 43.8% lead. PassMark single-thread scores show 4951 versus 3391, a 31.5% advantage.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 160UL does not. This means the Ultra 9 offers user-controlled frequency adjustments, whereas the 160UL runs at fixed clock limits.

Where Each One Wins

The data records zero benchmark wins for the Intel Core 7 160UL. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus takes every result. This includes every Cinebench iteration and every PassMark workload, from integer math to data compression.

The practical implication is that the 160UL cannot compete in any measured performance category. It is not a case of one processor winning in single-threaded tasks and the other in multi-threaded tasks. The Ultra 9 leads in both. The 160UL’s only potential advantage lies outside the benchmark data, such as its lower 15 W TDP versus 55 W for the Ultra 9, and its desktop Socket 1700 platform versus the mobile BGA 2114 socket. For workloads that demand raw throughput, the Ultra 9 is the clear choice. For power-constrained or desktop-specific applications, the 160UL remains a functional option, but it delivers no performance wins in the recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations. The Core 7 160UL is based on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. It uses Intel’s 10 nm process and is built by Intel’s own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation. It uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, marking a shift in manufacturing partner.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The 160UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9’s larger caches align with its higher core count and transistor budget: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, figures not recorded for the 160UL.

The integrated graphics also differ. The 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Despite fewer EUs, the Ultra 9’s graphics are from a newer architecture. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the 160UL does not, and the Ultra 9 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes on the 160UL.

The sockets are incompatible: the 160UL uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114 for mobile. This reflects their different market segments, with the 160UL listed as Desktop and the Ultra 9 as Mobile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 1.80 GHz for the 160UL and 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively.

TDP is another major difference: 15 W for the 160UL versus 55 W for the Ultra 9. The 160UL has a dual-channel memory bus supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 9 supports ECC memory; the 160UL does not.

PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 9 with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes, compared to Gen 4 and 8 lanes on the 160UL. The 160UL has its multiplier locked, while the Ultra 9 is unlocked. Release dates also differ: the 160UL launched on 2024-04-07, and the Ultra 9 on 2026-03-16. The Ultra 9 has a part number of SADSS, while the 160UL’s part number is unknown.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent and massive lead for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 against 946 for the 160UL, a delta of 84.2% in favor of the Ultra 9. Single-core R15 shows 340 versus 133, a 60.9% gap.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. Multicore scores are 21198 for the Ultra 9 and 3942 for the 160UL, an 81.4% difference. Single-core is 2992 versus 556, also 81.4%. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 39684 versus 9386, a 76.3% lead, while single-core is 2356 versus 1325, a 43.8% gap.

PassMark workloads amplify the difference. Data compression scores 658724 for the Ultra 9 versus 108953 for the 160UL, an 83.5% advantage. Data encryption shows 50008 versus 7146, an 85.7% gap. Extended instructions are 51290 versus 5832, an 88.6% difference. Find prime numbers scores 519 versus 50, a 90.4% gap, the largest margin in the dataset.

Floating point math shows 201773 versus 25670, an 87.3% lead. Integer math is 164839 versus 47515, a 71.2% gap. Multithread scores are 59439 versus 11043, an 81.4% difference. Physics tests show 3387 versus 819, a 75.8% gap. Random string sorting scores 80327 versus 11843, an 85.3% difference.

Single-thread PassMark results are the closest comparison. The Ultra 9 scores 4951 versus 3391 for the 160UL, a 31.5% lead. This is the smallest delta in the entire head-to-head set, but it still represents a decisive win for the Ultra 9.

The nearest rival data places the Ultra 9 among top desktop processors. Its average score of 79574 sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-14900KF and 0.6% of the Core i9-14900K, with a 1.4% gap to the Intel Xeon w5-2565X. The 160UL’s average of 14232 is close to the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 0.3% slower, the Intel Core i5-10400F at 0.3% faster, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at 0.6% slower.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor by every measured metric. It wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 95th percentile ranking versus the 69th percentile for the Core 7 160UL, and delivers an average score of 79574 versus 14232. The largest single gap is 90.4% in PassMark find prime numbers, and the smallest is 31.5% in single-thread testing.

The Core 7 160UL is a low-power desktop processor with a 15 W TDP and a 10-core configuration. It is suitable for tasks where power consumption and desktop socket compatibility matter more than raw performance. Its 12 MB L3 cache and DDR4 support make it a flexible option for basic computing, but the benchmark results do not show any workload where it outperforms the Ultra 9.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile flagship with 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, DDR5-only support, and a 55 W TDP. Its 3 nm TSMC process and unlocked multiplier position it for high-performance mobile workloads. The data shows it competes with desktop-class CPUs like the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K, with average scores within 0.6% of those parts.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision depends on platform and power constraints. The 160UL fits a desktop Socket 1700 build with modest power draw. The Ultra 9 requires a mobile BGA 2114 motherboard and higher power delivery, but delivers over five times the average benchmark score. The recorded data provides no scenario where the 160UL wins, so the Ultra 9 is the correct choice for performance-oriented workloads.