Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core 7 251E ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor offer?

A: Both processors have 24 cores. The Intel Core 7 251E supports 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports 24 threads.

Q: What is the difference in base clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a base clock of 2.70 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 7 251E's base clock of 2.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574, while the Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database.

Q: Which processor has a larger L1 cache per core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 80 KB per core.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different architectural approaches from Intel. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference is substantial and likely contributes to the efficiency and performance characteristics of each chip.

The Intel Core 7 251E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 9 packs more transistors, with 17,800 million, whereas the transistor count for the Core 7 is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The Core 7 251E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus offers larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache, which is identical.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Ultra 9 also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 7 does not.

Socket types separate the two into different market segments. The Core 7 251E uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop processor. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114 and is a mobile processor. This distinction matters for system integration and upgrade paths.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9.

PCIe lane counts differ, with the Core 7 offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Ultra 9 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Both support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates in raw performance metrics. Its 95th percentile ranking places it among the top processors in the database, and its average benchmark score of 79,574 is substantial. The benchmark data available for the Ultra 9 shows strong results across Cinebench and PassMark tests, indicating capabilities in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which limits direct comparisons. However, its 24 cores and 32 threads provide a thread-count advantage over the Ultra 9's 24 threads. This suggests the Core 7 could be better suited for workloads that scale with thread count rather than core count alone, such as heavily parallelized rendering or scientific computing tasks.

The Core 7 251E also wins on memory compatibility. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives system builders flexibility, particularly in cost-sensitive desktop builds where DDR4 memory is more prevalent. The Ultra 9's DDR5-only requirement may be a constraint in certain upgrade scenarios.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) and a slightly lower boost clock (5.50 GHz versus 5.60 GHz). This base clock advantage means the Ultra 9 likely delivers better sustained performance in workloads that do not boost to maximum frequencies.

Desktop versus mobile positioning matters. The Core 7 251E is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile processor with a 55 W TDP. The Ultra 9 achieves higher performance within a lower power envelope, which is significant for laptop implementations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251E | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-16 |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus across multiple tests, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry makes direct head-to-head comparisons impossible, but the Ultra 9's scores can be analyzed against its nearest rivals to contextualize its performance.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 5,981. Single-core performance in R15 is 340. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score rises to 21,198 and single-core reaches 2,992. Cinebench R23 shows a multi-core score of 39,684 and a single-core score of 2,356.

PassMark results for the Ultra 9 show a multi-thread score of 59,439 and a single-thread score of 4,951. Data compression reaches 658,724, data encryption scores 50,008, and extended instructions score 51,290. Floating-point math scores 201,773, integer math scores 164,839, and physics scores 3,387. Random string sorting achieves 80,327, and prime number finding scores 519.

The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus provide context for these scores. The Intel Core i9-14900KF has an average score of 79,371, which is 0.3% lower than the Ultra 9's 79,574. The AMD EPYC 7413 scores 80,041, which is 0.6% higher than the Ultra 9. The Intel Core i9-14900K scores 79,097, 0.6% lower. The Intel Xeon w5-2565X scores 80,671, 1.4% higher.

These deltas indicate that the Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits in a competitive band with high-end desktop processors. It edges out the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K by small margins, while trailing the EPYC 7413 and Xeon w5-2565X by similarly small margins. The performance clustering is tight, with all four rivals within 1.4% of the Ultra 9's average score.

The data suggests that the Ultra 9 290HX Plus delivers performance comparable to flagship desktop parts despite its mobile form factor and lower 55 W TDP. This efficiency profile is notable for a mobile processor.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear performance leader based on the recorded data. Its 95th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 79,574 place it among the top CPUs in the database. The benchmark results show strong multicore capability with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,684 and solid single-core performance at 2,356. Its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K, sit within 0.6% of its average score, confirming its competitive position.

The Intel Core 7 251E lacks recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. Its 50th percentile ranking and 24 cores with 32 threads suggest mid-range positioning. The thread advantage over the Ultra 9 could benefit certain parallel workloads, but without benchmark data, this remains speculative.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus also offers architectural advantages: a 3 nm process from TSMC, larger per-core caches, higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, and an unlocked multiplier. Its mobile form factor with a 55 W TDP delivers high-end performance in a lower power envelope, which is significant for laptop deployments.

The Core 7 251E's strengths lie in its desktop orientation with Socket 1700, DDR4 and DDR5 support, and a lower 65 W TDP. Its launch MSRP of $384 provides a reference point for its market positioning, though pricing comparisons are not part of this analysis.

For users prioritizing maximum performance, the data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. For those requiring a desktop processor with flexible memory options and a higher thread count, the Intel Core 7 251E offers a distinct configuration. The choice ultimately depends on whether the use case demands the Ultra 9's proven benchmark results or the Core 7's desktop-specific features and thread count.