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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data presents an unusually lopsided contest. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of the 17 direct comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 251TE secures only 2 wins. The magnitude of the Ultra 9's victories, however, varies dramatically by workload type.

The most decisive Ultra 9 win comes in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 519 against the 251TE's 140, a 73% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Extended instructions show a 66.9% gap (51290 vs 16974), and floating point math shows a 57.6% gap (201773 vs 85607). These are compute-heavy, throughput-oriented tasks where the Ultra 9's architecture clearly dominates.

Multi-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 versus 2572, a 57% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a 49.4% gap (21198 vs 10717), and R23 multi-core shows a 35.7% gap (39684 vs 25518). Data compression (658724 vs 334399, 49.2% lead), data encryption (50008 vs 22176, 55.7% lead), and random string sorting (80327 vs 39643, 50.6% lead) all fall in the same ballpark: roughly half or more of the 251TE's score added on top.

The single-threaded picture is more nuanced. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 wins with 4951 versus 3568, a 27.9% lead. But in Cinebench R15 single-core, the 251TE wins 362 to 340, a 6.5% margin. The most striking reversal occurs in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 251TE scores 3602 against the Ultra 9's 2356, a 52.9% advantage. Yet in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Ultra 9 wins 2992 to 1512, a 49.5% gap. The fact that the 251TE wins R15 and R23 single-core while losing R20 single-core by such a wide margin suggests the two chips respond very differently to the specific instruction mixes and memory access patterns in each test version.

The overall average benchmark score tells the same story as the head-to-head results: the Ultra 9 averages 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 251TE averages 41650, placing it in the 88th percentile. The Ultra 9's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (delta 0.3% ahead) and the Core i9-14900K (delta 0.6% ahead), while the 251TE sits in a much lower performance tier, near the Core Ultra 7 265H (delta 0.1%) and Core i7-14650HX (delta 0.2%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of 17 direct comparisons. The Intel Core 7 251TE wins only 2.

Q: Is the Core 7 251TE competitive in single-core performance?

A: It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 6.5% (362 vs 340) and R23 single-core by 52.9% (3602 vs 2356). However, it loses R20 single-core by 49.5% (1512 vs 2992) and PassMark single-thread by 27.9% (3568 vs 4951), so the result depends heavily on the benchmark.

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

A: The Ultra 9 leads by 57% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 49.4% in R20 multi-core, and 35.7% in R23 multi-core. PassMark multithread shows a 49.5% gap (59439 vs 30022).

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark advantage for either chip?

A: The Ultra 9's largest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, with a 73% lead (519 vs 140). The 251TE's largest win is Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 52.9% lead (3602 vs 2356).

Q: How do the processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ultra 9 supports 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the 251TE supports 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 7 251TE and the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus have ECC memory support enabled.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel's Bartlett Lake architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 215 mm². The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process, with a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 9's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, while the 251TE's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Core and thread configurations differ notably. Both chips have 24 cores, but the 251TE supports 32 threads while the Ultra 9 supports only 24 threads. This means the 251TE has 8 additional threads, likely from Hyper-Threading on certain core types, while the Ultra 9 appears to run with one thread per core across all 24 cores. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 9 still achieves far higher multi-core scores, indicating that its individual cores are substantially more powerful.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 251TE has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and the same 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 9's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its strong performance in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and encryption.

Memory support differs as well. The 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 9 has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe lanes differ: the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 251TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ, with the 251TE using UHD Graphics 770 and the Ultra 9 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114, a mobile socket. The 251TE is classified as a desktop market segment part, while the Ultra 9 is classified as mobile. The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the 251TE does not.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: 1.40 GHz (251TE) vs 2.70 GHz (Ultra 9)
• Boost clock: 5.40 GHz (251TE) vs 5.50 GHz (Ultra 9)
• TDP: 45 W (251TE) vs 55 W (Ultra 9)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (251TE) vs Intel BGA 2114 (Ultra 9)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (251TE) vs Arrow Lake-HX Refresh (Ultra 9)
• Process node: 10 nm (251TE) vs 3 nm (Ultra 9)
• Foundry: Intel (251TE) vs TSMC (Ultra 9)
• Transistors: not recorded (251TE) vs 17,800 million (Ultra 9)
• Die size: 215 mm² (251TE) vs 243 mm² (Ultra 9)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (251TE) vs 192 KB per core (Ultra 9)
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core (251TE) vs 3 MB per core (Ultra 9)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (251TE) vs DDR5 only (Ultra 9)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (251TE) vs 102.4 GB/s (Ultra 9)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes (251TE) vs Gen 5, 20 lanes (Ultra 9)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 (251TE) vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Ultra 9)
• Market segment: Desktop (251TE) vs Mobile (Ultra 9)
• Release date: 2025-01-12 (251TE) vs 2026-03-16 (Ultra 9)
• Launch MSRP: $384 (251TE) vs not recorded (Ultra 9)
• Multiplier unlocked: false (251TE) vs true (Ultra 9)
• Part number: SRQAXQ5ZG (251TE) vs SADSS (Ultra 9)

The 251TE has more threads (32 vs 24), while the Ultra 9 has higher clocks, more cache per core, and a smaller process node.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in nearly every compute-heavy category. It dominates multi-threaded rendering, as shown by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core results. It wins all PassMark sub-tests except one: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread. The Ultra 9's 73% lead in find prime numbers and 66.9% lead in extended instructions indicate a strong advantage in pure arithmetic and SIMD-style workloads. Its 57.6% lead in floating point math reinforces this pattern.

The Core 7 251TE wins only two benchmark comparisons, both in Cinebench single-core: R15 and R23. The R23 single-core win is especially pronounced at 52.9% (3602 vs 2356). This suggests the 251TE's architecture, with its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz and Intel's 10 nm process, delivers exceptional single-threaded performance in certain legacy or scalar workloads. However, the Ultra 9's R20 single-core win by 49.5% (2992 vs 1512) complicates this picture, indicating that the 251TE's single-core advantage is not universal across all Cinebench versions.

For integer math, the Ultra 9 leads by 23.7% (164839 vs 125739), a smaller margin than most other tests. This is the Ultra 9's narrowest victory, suggesting the 251TE is relatively competitive in integer-heavy tasks. The 251TE also has the advantage of 32 threads versus 24, which could theoretically benefit highly threaded workloads that scale with thread count, but the benchmark data does not reflect such an advantage, as the Ultra 9 wins all multi-threaded tests by large margins.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors with different intended roles. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear performance leader, winning 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons and averaging a benchmark score of 79574, nearly double the 251TE's 41650. Its 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database places it alongside desktop flagships like the Core i9-14900KF and Core i9-14900K. The 251TE, at the 88th percentile, sits in a lower tier near the Core Ultra 7 265H and Core i7-14650HX.

For users selecting a processor for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, or floating-point math, the Ultra 9 is the only choice supported by the benchmark data. Its 57% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 49.4% lead in R20 multi-core, and 35.7% lead in R23 multi-core show consistent dominance across Cinebench generations. The 73% lead in find prime numbers and 66.9% lead in extended instructions demonstrate that the Ultra 9's architectural advantages extend beyond simple core-count scaling.

The 251TE's appeal rests on two specific single-core wins: Cinebench R15 and R23. Its 52.9% lead in R23 single-core is substantial, and its 6.5% lead in R15 single-core, while smaller, is still a win. The 251TE also offers DDR4 memory support, which may be relevant for systems with existing DDR4 memory infrastructure, and it has a lower TDP of 45 W versus 55 W. Its launch MSRP is recorded as $384.

The Ultra 9's mobile socket (BGA 2114) and mobile market segment classification indicate it is intended for high-performance laptops, while the 251TE's desktop socket (Socket 1700) targets desktop builds. The Ultra 9's unlocked multiplier and larger PCIe lane count (20 lanes vs 16) further differentiate it as the higher-end part. The 251TE's higher thread count (32 vs 24) does not translate into benchmark victories, as the Ultra 9 wins all multi-threaded tests despite having fewer threads.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Ultra 9 is the superior processor for nearly all measured workloads, while the 251TE holds a narrow but genuine advantage in select single-core Cinebench tests. The choice between them depends on whether those specific single-core wins matter more than the Ultra 9's overwhelming multi-core and throughput advantages.