Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Intel Core 9 270H and Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus represent two distinct strategies for high-performance mobile computing. The 270H is a Raptor Lake Refresh part, while the 290HX Plus is a much larger Arrow Lake-HX Refresh processor built on a different process. The database shows a stark performance gap, with the Ultra 9 winning 16 of the 17 head-to-head tests, but the 270H does claim a narrow single-core victory in one legacy benchmark. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, how their architectures differ, and what the recorded measurements imply for different workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The 270H uses hyperthreading to reach 20 threads from 14 cores, while the 290HX Plus does not.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus at 5.50 GHz. Both share the same 2.70 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, which is more than double the Intel Core 9 270H's score of 38335. The 290HX Plus sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 270H sits in the 86th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core 9 270H win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes. The 270H wins the cinebench R15 single-core test with a score of 347 versus 340 for the 290HX Plus, a delta of 2.1%. It loses all other recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Core 9 270H has no recorded memory bandwidth figure in the database. The 290HX Plus also supports ECC memory, while the 270H does not.

Q: What are the L3 cache sizes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 9 270H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates the recorded benchmark suite. Its wins span every category of multi-threaded performance, including Cinebench multi-core tests, PassMark math operations, encryption, compression, and physics. The single-thread tests also favor the 290HX Plus, with a 20.3% lead in PassMark single-thread score. The data indicates this processor is the clear choice for any workload that can use multiple cores or that benefits from high sustained throughput.

The Intel Core 9 270H has exactly one recorded win: the Cinebench R15 single-core test. Its score of 347 beats the 290HX Plus's 340 by 2.1%. This is a narrow margin and an older benchmark, but it does show that the 270H's higher boost clock of 5.80 GHz can translate into a slight advantage in a specific legacy single-threaded scenario. Outside of that single test, the 270H trails in every other measured category.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The 290HX Plus is for demanding, multi-threaded applications where its 24 cores and larger caches provide a massive advantage. The 270H is relevant only for workloads that are exclusively single-threaded and specifically sensitive to the older R15 test methodology. For modern single-threaded tasks, the 290HX Plus still leads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design eras and foundries. The Intel Core 9 270H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. This process difference is significant, as the 290HX Plus integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 270H has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Core layouts differ substantially. The 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating a hybrid configuration with performance and efficiency cores where some cores support hyperthreading. The 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyperthreading, suggesting a different core topology. Cache hierarchies also scale differently: the 270H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Shared L3 cache jumps from 24 MB on the 270H to 36 MB on the 290HX Plus.

Memory support diverges as well. The 270H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. The 290HX Plus adds ECC memory support, a feature absent on the 270H. The 290HX Plus also exposes more PCIe lanes: 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU versus 8 Gen 5 lanes on the 270H. Integrated graphics differ, with the 270H using Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units and the 290HX Plus using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 270H does not. The 270H uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, and the 290HX Plus uses the newer Intel BGA 2114 socket. The 290HX Plus carries a higher TDP of 55 watts versus 45 watts for the 270H.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads in core count with 24 cores versus 14, though both have the same 2.70 GHz base clock. The 270H has a higher boost clock at 5.80 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. The 290HX Plus has a higher TDP of 55 watts versus 45 watts. The 270H uses the BGA 1744 socket, while the 290HX Plus uses BGA 2114.

Process technology and foundry differ: the 270H is on Intel's 10 nm node, while the 290HX Plus is on TSMC's 3 nm node. The 290HX Plus has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, figures not recorded for the 270H. Cache sizes are larger on the 290HX Plus at every level: 192 KB L1 per core versus 80 KB, 3 MB L2 per core versus 2 MB, and 36 MB shared L3 versus 24 MB.

Memory support is narrower on the 290HX Plus, which only accepts DDR5, while the 270H accepts both DDR4 and DDR5. The 290HX Plus supports ECC memory, has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU. The 270H has no recorded memory bandwidth and offers 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the 270H does not. The 270H has a launch MSRP of $697; the 290HX Plus has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The gulf between the two processors is widest in multi-threaded Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 290HX Plus scores 5981 against 2464 for the 270H, a 58.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the 290HX Plus at 21198 versus 10268, a 51.6% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core puts the 290HX Plus at 39684 versus 18000, a 54.6% lead. These results indicate the 24-core design provides roughly double the multi-threaded rendering throughput.

Single-core Cinebench results are closer. The 270H wins R15 single-core with 347 versus 340, a 2.1% margin. The 290HX Plus wins R20 single-core with 2992 versus 1449, a 51.6% margin. The 290HX Plus also wins R23 single-core with 2356 versus 2040, a 13.4% margin. The R20 result is particularly striking, as the 290HX Plus more than doubles the 270H in a single-threaded test.

PassMark tests show consistent dominance for the 290HX Plus. Integer math favors the 290HX Plus with 164839 versus 97654, a 40.8% lead. Floating point math shows an even larger gap: 201773 versus 70640, a 65% lead. Extended instructions score 51290 versus 20079, a 60.9% lead. Prime number finding scores 519 versus 112, a 78.4% lead, the largest percentage margin in the entire comparison.

Memory and data workloads follow the same pattern. Data compression scores 658724 for the 290HX Plus versus 333785 for the 270H, a 49.3% lead. Data encryption scores 50008 versus 19369, a 61.3% lead. Random string sorting scores 80327 versus 36867, a 54.1% lead. Physics scores 3387 versus 1966, a 42% lead. The PassMark multi-thread score is 59439 versus 28764, a 51.6% lead, and the single-thread score is 4951 versus 3944, a 20.3% lead.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as the stronger processor for nearly all scenarios. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, holds a 95th percentile ranking versus 86th for the 270H, and delivers an average benchmark score of 79574 versus 38335. Its 24 cores, larger cache hierarchy, and newer TSMC 3 nm process produce decisive advantages in multi-threaded workloads, memory-heavy tasks, and even most single-threaded tests.

The Intel Core 9 270H retains one specific advantage: the Cinebench R15 single-core test. Its 5.80 GHz boost clock and 2.1% win in that legacy test suggest a narrow edge in a particular older single-threaded workload. It also offers DDR4 memory support, which could matter for systems using older memory modules, and it carries a lower 45 watt TDP.

Users running modern multi-threaded applications should favor the 290HX Plus. The data shows it has more cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, and faster results across every modern benchmark category. Users constrained to a specific legacy single-threaded workflow that mirrors Cinebench R15 might prefer the 270H, but the evidence shows that is the only scenario where it leads.