Intel Core i3-14100F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unusually lopsided comparison. The Intel Core i3-14100F does not record a single win across the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 17. The use-case split is therefore clear: the Ultra 9 dominates every measured workload category, from single-threaded responsiveness to heavily parallelized multi-core tasks.

For desktop users seeking a modest, efficient entry point, the i3-14100F still holds relevance in its core role. Its 4 cores and 8 threads with a 4.70 GHz boost clock deliver a functional level of performance for everyday computing, as reflected in its 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The data shows single-core scores of 186 in Cinebench R15 and 1847 in Cinebench R23, which are respectable for basic productivity.

The Ultra 9 290HX Plus occupies a completely different performance tier. With 24 cores and 24 threads, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, and a 95th percentile ranking, it is positioned for demanding workloads including content creation, scientific computing, and heavy multitasking. Its single-core scores of 340 in Cinebench R15 and 2356 in Cinebench R23 indicate a substantial lead even in lightly threaded applications, while multi-core scores such as 39684 in Cinebench R23 demonstrate massive parallel capability.

The distribution of wins indicates no scenario where the i3-14100F outperforms the Ultra 9. Even in the closest contest, Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 leads by 21.6%. The largest gaps appear in integer-heavy and encryption tasks, where the Ultra 9 leads by 72.5% and 82.2% respectively. The use-case split is unambiguous: the i3-14100F serves as a basic desktop processor, while the Ultra 9 is a high-end mobile powerhouse.

# 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 i3-14100F has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core i3-14100F boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ultra 9 leads in every single-threaded test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2356 versus 1847 for the i3-14100F, a 21.6% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 scores 4951 versus 3778, a 23.7% lead.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i3-14100F has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-14100F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus support ECC memory.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for each?

A: The i3-14100F uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the scale of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 against 1318 for the i3-14100F, a 78% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows 21198 versus 5495, a 74.1% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 39684 versus 13084, a 67% advantage. These results confirm that the Ultra 9's 24 cores provide a decisive advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the Ultra 9. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 340 versus 186, a 45.3% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 2992 versus 775, a 74.1% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core narrows the difference to 2356 versus 1847, a 21.6% lead. The higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz on the Ultra 9 explains part of this advantage, though the architecture also plays a role.

PassMark tests provide further granularity. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 at 658724 versus 176106, a 73.3% lead. Encryption performance is even more one-sided: 50008 versus 8922, an 82.2% gap. The extended instructions test reveals a 76.6% advantage for the Ultra 9 (51290 versus 11984). Find prime numbers shows the largest relative gap at 88.2% (519 versus 61), indicating a massive difference in integer-heavy logical operations.

Floating point math demonstrates the Ultra 9's strength in scientific workloads: 201773 versus 35370, an 82.5% lead. Integer math follows with 164839 versus 45357, a 72.5% advantage. The multithread score of 59439 versus 15420 represents a 74.1% lead, while physics simulation shows 3387 versus 1077, a 68.2% gap. Random string sorting completes the sweep with 80327 versus 17596, a 78.1% lead.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every measurable specification. The i3-14100F uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 9 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks differ: 3.50 GHz for the i3-14100F versus 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks favor the Ultra 9 at 5.50 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP ratings are similar at 58 watts for the i3-14100F and 55 watts for the Ultra 9, though the socket types differ completely: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop i3-14100F and Intel BGA 2114 for the mobile Ultra 9.

Memory support diverges significantly. The i3-14100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure not provided for the i3-14100F. PCIe lanes also differ: the i3-14100F provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The i3-14100F has no integrated graphics (N/A), while the Ultra 9 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The multiplier is locked on the i3-14100F but unlocked on the Ultra 9. Release dates differ by over two years: January 2024 for the i3-14100F and March 2026 for the Ultra 9. The i3-14100F has a launch MSRP of $109, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these processors is substantial. The i3-14100F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 163 mm². The Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename under the Core Ultra Series 2 banner, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is larger at 243 mm², and it contains 17,800 million transistors, a figure not recorded for the i3-14100F.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The i3-14100F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. These larger caches, combined with the higher core count, contribute to the Ultra 9's dominant benchmark results.

The process node difference is critical. The 3 nm TSMC process used by the Ultra 9 allows for significantly higher transistor density and power efficiency compared to the 10 nm Intel process used by the i3-14100F. This enables the Ultra 9 to pack 24 cores into a mobile form factor while maintaining a TDP of 55 watts, just 3 watts lower than the desktop i3-14100F's 58 watts. The architecture also includes integrated Arc graphics, a feature entirely absent from the i3-14100F.

# The Verdict

The data directs a clear conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every benchmark in the comparison, with leads ranging from 21.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 88.2% in PassMark find prime numbers. Its 95th percentile ranking versus the i3-14100F's 72nd percentile places it in a different performance class entirely. The average benchmark score of 79574 for the Ultra 9 dwarfs the 18519 average of the i3-14100F, a gap that aligns with the nearest rival data showing the Ultra 9 competing with the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% delta) while the i3-14100F trades with the Intel Core i5-13420H (0% delta).

For users requiring maximum multi-core throughput, the Ultra 9 is the only choice from this pair. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of L3 cache, and 5.50 GHz boost clock deliver unmatched performance in rendering, encryption, and floating-point workloads. The mobile BGA 2114 socket and integrated Arc graphics also make it suitable for high-performance laptops, though the unlocked multiplier suggests enthusiast tuning potential.

The i3-14100F serves a different purpose entirely. Its 4 cores and 8 threads, combined with a 58 watt TDP and support for both DDR4 and DDR5, make it a functional entry-level desktop processor. The lack of integrated graphics requires a discrete GPU, but the $109 launch MSRP positions it as an accessible option for basic systems. However, the benchmark data shows no workload where it surpasses the Ultra 9, so users seeking performance must look to the higher-tier processor. The verdict from the recorded measurements is unambiguous: the Ultra 9 is the superior processor in every tested scenario.