Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an overwhelmingly one-sided comparison. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus claims every single victory. The Intel Core 7 250H does not win a single test. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload type, which reveals distinct architectural strengths.

The largest gap appears in the PassMark extended instructions test. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 51,290 against the Core 7 250H's 17,318, a difference of 66.2%. This suggests the newer design handles advanced instruction sets with substantially greater efficiency. Similarly, floating point math shows a 67.7% gap, with the Ultra 9 reaching 201,773 versus 65,094. These are the kinds of workloads that benefit from wider execution resources and a more modern microarchitecture.

Prime number finding produces the most dramatic relative difference. The Ultra 9 scores 519 while the Core 7 250H manages only 106, a 79.6% deficit. This workload is highly sensitive to integer throughput and cache behavior, and the data indicates the Ultra 9's architecture is far better suited to it. Data encryption also shows a 63.6% gap, with scores of 50,008 versus 18,206.

The Cinebench suite reinforces this pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 39,684 against 16,561, a 58.3% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a 54.3% gap, with 21,198 versus 9,697. R15 multi-core shows 5,981 versus 3,147, a 47.4% difference. These results indicate the Ultra 9's additional cores and threads translate directly into sustained multi-threaded performance.

Single-core tests tell a more moderate story. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Ultra 9 ahead by 18%, scoring 2,356 versus 1,931. The R20 single-core test shows a 54.3% gap, with 2,992 versus 1,368, which is surprisingly large for a single-threaded workload. R15 single-core shows 340 versus 298, a 12.4% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 4,951 versus 4,148, a 16.2% gap. The single-core margins are generally smaller than the multi-core margins, but the Ultra 9 still leads consistently.

Memory and compression workloads follow the same trend. PassMark data compression shows 658,724 versus 303,269, a 54% gap. Random string sorting shows 80,327 versus 34,136, a 57.5% difference. PassMark multithread shows 59,439 versus 27,030, a 54.5% gap. Physics simulation shows 3,387 versus 1,824, a 46.1% difference. Integer math shows 164,839 versus 99,100, a 39.9% gap, which is the smallest multi-core margin recorded.

The average benchmark score for the Ultra 9 sits at 79,574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 250H averages 35,728, which lands in the 85th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 include the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 79,371 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79,097 with a 0.6% delta. The Core 7 250H sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 at 35,719 with a 0% delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 35,670 with a 0.2% delta.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation between these two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is in a different performance class entirely. Its average benchmark score of 79,574 more than doubles the Core 7 250H's 35,728. The percentile ranking difference, 95th versus 85th, confirms this gap is not marginal.

For users running heavily threaded workloads, the choice is unambiguous. The Ultra 9 delivers more than double the multi-core performance in nearly every test. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,684 versus 16,561 represents a 58.3% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 59,439 versus 27,030. These are not incremental improvements.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Ultra 9, though by smaller margins. The 16.2% lead in PassMark single-thread and the 18% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate a more efficient core design. The Core 7 250H's 5.40 GHz boost clock does not fully compensate for the architectural differences.

The Core 7 250H still holds relevance in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. Its 14 cores and 20 threads are capable of handling mainstream productivity tasks. But the recorded data shows no workload category where it outperforms the Ultra 9. Even in integer math, its best relative showing, it trails by 39.9%.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus targets demanding mobile workstations and high-end laptops. Its 24 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache position it for content creation, simulation, and other compute-intensive tasks. The Core 7 250H serves laptops needing solid multi-threaded performance without the top-tier core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574, while the Intel Core 7 250H averages 35,728.

Q: How large is the gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Ultra 9 scores 39,684 compared to the Core 7 250H's 16,561, a 58.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 7 250H win any benchmark tests?

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every test.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The smallest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Ultra 9 leads by 12.4%, scoring 340 versus 298.

Q: How do the processors compare in the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The Ultra 9 scores 4,951 versus 4,148 for the Core 7 250H, a 16.2% lead.

Q: What is the largest performance gap recorded?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 9 leads by 79.6%, scoring 519 versus 106.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 7 250H uses 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Ultra 9 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 9 has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, resulting in 24 threads total. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores with 20 threads, indicating some cores support additional threads.

Base clocks differ slightly. The Core 7 250H runs at 2.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. The Ultra 9 runs at 2.70 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The Ultra 9 holds a modest clock advantage in both metrics.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts. The Core 7 250H has a 45 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 has a 55 W TDP.

The socket interface is different. The Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 7 250H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 offers more cache at every level.

Memory support differs. The Core 7 250H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Ultra 9 lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 7 250H does not list a bandwidth figure.

ECC memory support differs. The Core 7 250H does not support ECC, while the Ultra 9 does.

PCIe lane allocation differs. The Core 7 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The multiplier unlock status differs. The Core 7 250H has a locked multiplier, while the Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier.

Release dates differ. The Core 7 250H released on 2024-12-17, while the Ultra 9 released on 2026-03-16.

The Core 7 250H has a launch MSRP of $502. The Ultra 9 does not have a recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is substantial. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, part of the Core 7 Raptor Lake Refresh generation. The Ultra 9 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename under the Ultra 9 Arrow Lake-HX generation.

The manufacturing process differs dramatically. The Core 7 250H uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 9 uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. This process advantage likely contributes to the Ultra 9's efficiency and performance gains.

The Ultra 9 lists 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 7 250H does not list transistor count or die size in the database.

The core design philosophy differs. The Core 7 250H uses 14 cores with 20 threads, suggesting a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 9 uses 24 cores with 24 threads, indicating a different core topology without simultaneous multithreading.

Cache organization reflects the architectural changes. The Ultra 9's per-core L1 of 192 KB and per-core L2 of 3 MB are significantly larger than the Core 7 250H's 80 KB and 2 MB. The shared L3 also grows from 24 MB to 36 MB.

The integrated graphics architecture changes from Iris Xe Graphics with 96 EU to Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The newer Arc architecture uses fewer execution units but belongs to a different graphics generation.

Memory controller differences are notable. The Core 7 250H retains DDR4 support, suggesting a more mature memory controller. The Ultra 9 moves to DDR5 only, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

The PCIe implementation expands significantly. The Core 7 250H provides 8 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. This affects how many high-speed NVMe drives and GPUs can be connected directly.

ECC support appears only on the Ultra 9, which may matter for certain workstation and server-adjacent workloads.

The production status for both is listed as Active. Both target the mobile market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every recorded benchmark category. The data shows no scenario where the Core 7 250H takes the lead. However, the magnitude of the Ultra 9's advantage varies by workload, which helps define where each processor fits.

The Ultra 9 delivers its largest advantages in compute-intensive integer and floating-point workloads. Prime number finding shows a 79.6% gap, floating-point math shows 67.7%, and extended instructions show 66.2%. These results point to workloads like cryptography, scientific simulation, and code compilation benefiting most from the Ultra 9.

Data encryption shows a 63.6% gap, making the Ultra 9 the clear choice for security-related tasks such as VPN termination, disk encryption, and secure communications processing. The 50,008 score versus 18,206 represents a massive throughput difference.

Multi-threaded rendering and content creation workloads strongly favor the Ultra 9. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 58.3% gap. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch processing tasks will see the largest real-world benefits. The 24 cores provide substantial parallel execution capability.

Memory-sensitive workloads also favor the Ultra 9. Data compression shows a 54% gap, and random string sorting shows 57.5%. These tasks benefit from the larger 36 MB L3 cache and the higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Single-threaded workloads favor the Ultra 9 by smaller margins. PassMark single-thread shows 16.2%, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 18%. Applications that rely heavily on single-core performance, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity apps, will see a more modest improvement.

The Core 7 250H's closest performance comes in integer math, where it trails by 39.9%. This is still a significant gap, but it represents the Ultra 9's smallest multi-core advantage. The Core 7 250H's 14 cores and 20 threads remain viable for mainstream multitasking and general productivity.

The Ultra 9's higher TDP of 55 W versus 45 W suggests it is designed for larger laptops with more robust cooling solutions. The Core 7 250H's lower TDP may fit thinner chassis more comfortably.

The Core 7 250H retains DDR4 support, which could make it more flexible for systems using older memory modules. The Ultra 9's DDR5-only support requires newer memory infrastructure.

The Ultra 9's 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes enable more extensive expansion options for high-end laptops, including multiple fast SSDs and external GPU enclosures. The Core 7 250H's 8 lanes limit expansion capacity.

For users with ECC memory requirements, the Ultra 9 is the only option, as the Core 7 250H lacks ECC support.

The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier offers overclocking potential that the Core 7 250H cannot match, though mobile thermal constraints may limit practical gains.