Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Intel Core 7 240H and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus are two mobile processors aimed at very different performance tiers. The database results show a clear separation, with the Ultra 9 290HX Plus winning every single recorded benchmark comparison. This analysis breaks down the magnitude of those wins, the architectural reasons behind them, and the practical use cases each chip serves.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus finishes ahead of the Intel Core 7 240H. The smallest margins appear in single-threaded workloads, while the largest gaps show up in multi-threaded and mathematically intensive tasks.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 39684 against the 240H's 15764, a delta of -60.3% for the 240H. That is a massive gap, roughly 2.5 times the performance. The single-core R23 result is closer: 2356 versus 1719, a -27% delta. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20, where the multi-core score is 21198 versus 8562 (-59.6%), and the single-core score is 2992 versus 1208 (-59.6%). Note that the R20 single-core delta is identical to the multi-core delta, which is unusual and reflects the 240H's relatively weak showing in that particular test.

The Cinebench R15 results follow suit. Multi-core: 5981 versus 2360, a -60.5% delta. Single-core: 340 versus 249, a -26.8% delta. The single-core deltas across the Cinebench suite hover around -27%, which indicates the Ultra 9's clock speed advantage translates into a consistent, though not overwhelming, lead in lightly threaded work.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-core dominance. The data compression test shows 658724 versus 271774, a -58.7% delta. Integer math: 164839 versus 80396, a -51.2% delta. Floating point math: 201773 versus 58905, a -70.8% delta. The extended instructions test (SIMD-heavy) shows 51290 versus 16897, a -67.1% delta. The find prime numbers test, which is highly sensitive to integer throughput, shows the largest relative gap: 519 versus 102, a -80.3% delta. That is the single biggest percentage difference in the entire dataset.

Other PassMark workloads show similar trends. Multithread: 59439 versus 23975, a -59.7% delta. Physics: 3387 versus 1723, a -49.1% delta. Random string sorting: 80327 versus 28866, a -64.1% delta. Data encryption: 50008 versus 15155, a -69.7% delta. Single-thread: 4951 versus 3782, a -23.6% delta. The single-thread gap is the smallest relative difference recorded, which makes sense given both processors share a high boost clock philosophy.

In absolute terms, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers more than double the multi-core performance in most tests. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 is 79574, while the 240H sits at 31483. The Ultra 9 ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 82nd percentile for the 240H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design generations and foundries. The Intel Core 7 240H uses Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh architecture, built by TSMC on a 3 nm process node. That node difference is significant: the 3 nm process allows for substantially higher transistor density and better power efficiency, which directly contributes to the Ultra 9's ability to maintain high performance across 24 cores.

The core counts differ dramatically. The 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Note the thread count: 24 threads for 24 cores means the Ultra 9 does not rely on hyperthreading, while the 240H does (10 cores, 16 threads). The Ultra 9's advantage in multi-threaded workloads comes from raw core count and architecture efficiency, not from simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The 240H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches and bigger shared L3 pool on the Ultra 9 help feed its higher core count and reduce memory pressure in data-heavy workloads.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 9. The 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Ultra 9 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 300 MHz boost advantage, combined with the newer architecture, explains the consistent single-thread lead.

The Ultra 9 uses a different socket: Intel BGA 2114 versus the 240H's Intel BGA 1744. It also carries more transistors: 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, though the 240H's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 memory only, while the 240H supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 9's memory bandwidth is rated at 102.4 GB/s, while the 240H's is not listed. The Ultra 9 supports ECC memory; the 240H does not.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). That 12-lane difference matters for users planning to run multiple high-bandwidth devices.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Both have 64 EUs, but the architectures are different generations.

The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the 240H does not. The Ultra 9's TDP is 55 watts versus 45 watts for the 240H. The Ultra 9 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the 240H is a Core 7 Raptor Lake Refresh product.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 240H does not win any of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its nearest rivals in the database, by average score, are the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 (31473, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (31495, delta 0%), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H (31508, delta -0.1%), and the Intel Core i5-13500 (31510, delta -0.1%). This places the 240H in a solid mid-range mobile tier. It is competitive with those chips, all within 0.1% of each other. For a 10-core, 16-thread Raptor Lake part, that is respectable company.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, by contrast, sits near the top of the database. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-14900KF (79371, delta 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7413 (80041, delta -0.6%), the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097, delta 0.6%), and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X (80671, delta -1.4%). The Ultra 9 is within 1.4% of a Xeon workstation processor and within 0.6% of the Core i9-14900K, which is a desktop flagship. For a mobile part, that is exceptional positioning.

The use-case split is therefore extreme. The 240H is for mainstream laptops where 45-watt TDP, DDR4 or DDR5 support, and a 10-core/16-thread layout are sufficient. It delivers a 5.20 GHz boost clock and a 24 MB L3 cache, which is plenty for everyday productivity, moderate content creation, and light gaming. Its 82nd percentile ranking means it outperforms most CPUs in the database, even if it is far behind the Ultra 9.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus is for high-end mobile workstations and enthusiast gaming laptops. Its 24 cores (without hyperthreading), 36 MB L3 cache, 5.50 GHz boost clock, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for heavy rendering, large dataset processing, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with core count. The 95th percentile ranking confirms its position among the fastest CPUs recorded.

The encryption and floating point results highlight where the Ultra 9 pulls away most. The -69.7% delta in data encryption and -70.8% delta in floating point math suggest the newer architecture handles these workloads with far greater efficiency. The find prime numbers test, with its -80.3% delta, indicates an enormous integer throughput advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39684 versus 15764 for the Intel Core 7 240H, a -60.3% delta. PassMark multithread shows 59439 versus 23975, a -59.7% delta.

Q: How close is single-threaded performance between the two?

A: The Ultra 9 leads, but by a smaller margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2356 versus 1719, a -27% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4951 versus 3782, a -23.6% delta. The boost clocks are close: 5.50 GHz versus 5.20 GHz.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory types?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 9 also supports ECC memory, while the 240H does not.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core 7 240H does not.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: Both have 64 execution units. The 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmark scores for either.

Q: What are the socket and power differences?

A: The 240H uses Intel BGA 1744 with a 45-watt TDP. The Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114 with a 55-watt TDP. The Ultra 9 also provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 8 lanes for the 240H.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all 17 head-to-head tests, with multi-core deltas ranging from -49.1% to -80.3% in favor of the Ultra 9. Its 95th percentile ranking, average score of 79574, and proximity to desktop parts like the Core i9-14900K (within 0.6%) make it a high-end mobile option.

The Intel Core 7 240H is not a weak chip. Its 82nd percentile ranking and average score of 31483 place it alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, all within 0.1% of each other. It offers a 5.20 GHz boost clock, 24 MB L3 cache, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5. For a 45-watt mobile part, that is a capable configuration.

The choice depends on workload. For users running heavily threaded applications like video rendering, large-scale compilation, or scientific simulation, the Ultra 9's 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver roughly 2.5 times the multi-core performance. The 240H, with its 10 cores and 16 threads, cannot match that throughput.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks, the Ultra 9 still wins, but the margin shrinks to roughly 24-27%. The 300 MHz boost clock advantage and newer 3 nm architecture account for that lead. Users who prioritize single-thread performance above all else will find the 240H acceptable, but the Ultra 9 remains faster.

Power and platform considerations also matter. The Ultra 9 requires 55 watts versus 45 watts, uses a different socket (BGA 2114 versus BGA 1744), and demands DDR5 memory. The 240H offers more flexibility with DDR4 support. The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier and ECC support add value for specific users, while the 240H's lack of an unlocked multiplier limits tuning.

The database records a launch MSRP of $502 for the Intel Core 7 240H. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: 10 cores and 16 threads for the 240H, versus 24 cores and 24 threads for the Ultra 9. 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 BGA 1744 versus Intel BGA 2114.

Architecture: Raptor Lake (Raptor Lake-H) for the 240H, with a 10 nm Intel process. The Ultra 9 uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, built by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Ultra 9 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; no transistor count or die size is recorded for the 240H.

Cache: L1 is 80 KB per core for the 240H versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra 9. L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 24 MB shared versus 36 MB shared.

Memory: DDR4 and DDR5 support for the 240H, DDR5 only for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; the 240H's is not recorded. ECC support: no for the 240H, yes for the Ultra 9.

PCIe: Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only) for the 240H, Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) for the Ultra 9. Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 64EU for the 240H, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9. Multiplier: locked for the 240H, unlocked for the Ultra 9. Release dates: 2024-12-17 for the 240H, 2026-03-16 for the Ultra 9. Part numbers: SRQ6TQ5ML for the 240H, SADSS for the Ultra 9.