Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records an average benchmark score of 79574, while the Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374. The Ultra 9 sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 7 360 is in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates multi-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39684 versus 13634 for the Core 7 360, a 65.6% advantage. The PassMark multi-thread score is 59439 for the Ultra 9 against 15544 for the Core 7 360, a 73.8% gap.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads in single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2356 versus 1924 for the Core 7 360, an 18.3% difference. PassMark single-thread scores are 4951 and 4274, respectively, a 13.7% gap.

Q: Which processor uses a different foundry?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 is fabricated at Intel's own foundry on a 3 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is also on a 3 nm node but is produced by TSMC.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 360 does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has dual-channel memory support with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 7 360 uses single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5, but the Core 7 360 also adds LPDDR5X support.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 7 360 and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus represent two distinct design philosophies within Intel's mobile lineup. The Core 7 360 is built on the Wildcat Lake architecture and belongs to the Core 5 generation family. It uses a 3 nm process manufactured by Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, meanwhile, is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, based on the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename and the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation. It also uses a 3 nm node, but the foundry is TSMC.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. This 4x core count advantage is the single largest architectural differentiator and drives most of the multi-threaded performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both processors share the same L1 cache at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache per core is 2.5 MB on the Core 7 360 versus 3 MB on the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The shared L3 cache is far larger on the Ultra 9: 36 MB versus 6 MB. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus also carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, though the Core 7 360 does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 7 360 uses a single-channel memory bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a dual-channel bus with DDR5 only, delivering 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Ultra 9 but not on the Core 7 360.

PCIe connectivity is another major split. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ: the Core 7 360 has Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 7 360 does not. Sockets differ as well: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, and the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core 7 360 has a 15 W TDP, whereas the Ultra 9 has a 55 W TDP. Clock speeds show a 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the Core 7 360, versus 2.70 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost for the Ultra 9.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all 17 comparisons. The Core 7 360 records zero wins. The average benchmark score of 79574 for the Ultra 9 places it among the top 5% of all CPUs, while the Core 7 360 at 18374 sits in the 72nd percentile.

For workloads that depend on raw throughput, such as rendering, data compression, encryption, and heavy multi-threaded math, the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the decisive choice. Its 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache deliver results that the 6-core Core 7 360 cannot approach. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39684 is nearly triple the Core 7 360's 13634. PassMark integer math shows a 79.2% advantage for the Ultra 9.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 9 still leads, but the margin narrows. The 18.3% gap in Cinebench R23 single-core and 13.7% in PassMark single-thread indicate that the Core 7 360's Wildcat Lake architecture is competitive on a per-core basis, even if the overall package is smaller.

The Core 7 360 is suited to systems where the 15 W TDP and single-channel memory are adequate, such as thin-and-light mobile designs. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with its 55 W TDP, dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 5, and ECC support, targets high-performance mobile workstations and gaming laptops. The launch MSRP of $426 for the Core 7 360 is recorded in the database; the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has no launch MSRP listed.

The data does not support a scenario where the Core 7 360 outperforms the Ultra 9. The choice hinges on the performance envelope required: the Ultra 9 delivers top-tier results across every measured metric, while the Core 7 360 offers a lower-power alternative with substantially reduced throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 360 | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 6 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1516 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Wildcat Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Generation | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SAE3E | SADSS |

| Release Date | 2026-04-15 | 2026-03-16 |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus records a clean sweep across all 17 head-to-head comparisons in the database. The largest single-test margin comes in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 9 scores 164839 against the Core 7 360's 34238, a 79.2% advantage. This metric reflects the massive core-count difference and the Ultra 9's higher clock speeds.

Data compression shows a similar pattern. The Ultra 9 scores 658724 versus 142877 for the Core 7 360, a 78.3% gap. Data encryption follows at 77.7% (50008 versus 11164), and floating-point math also sits at 77.7% (201773 versus 44963). Random string sorting shows a 78% difference (80327 versus 17636).

The Cinebench suite reveals the multi-threaded dominance clearly. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 against 1374, a 77% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 21198 versus 5726, also a 73% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core produces 39684 versus 13634, a 65.6% difference. The PassMark multi-thread test records 59439 versus 15544, a 73.8% gap, while PassMark physics shows 3387 versus 1213, a 64.2% difference.

Extended instructions testing shows a 75.8% gap (51290 versus 12390), and find prime numbers shows 76.9% (519 versus 120). These results confirm that the Ultra 9's advantage persists across diverse workload types, from integer arithmetic to encryption to sorting.

Single-core results narrow the gap but still favor the Ultra 9. Cinebench R15 single-core scores 340 versus 193, a 43.2% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2992 versus 808, a 73% gap, which is notably larger than the R23 single-core margin of 18.3% (2356 versus 1924). PassMark single-thread scores are 4951 versus 4274, a 13.7% difference.

The wins are unambiguous: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus takes all 17 benchmarks. The smallest margins appear in single-threaded tests, where the Core 7 360's architecture shows relative strength, but the overall performance envelope belongs to the Ultra 9. The benchmark data indicates that any workload requiring substantial compute throughput will favor the 24-core processor by a wide margin, while lightly threaded tasks will still see a meaningful but smaller advantage.