Intel Core i9-13900 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and the Intel Core i9-13900 are both high-performance parts, but they are built for entirely different arenas. The data shows the 255HX, a mobile processor, pulls ahead in the majority of compute-heavy tasks, while the i9-13900, a desktop chip, retains a narrow edge in specific integer workloads. This comparison highlights a generational leap in efficiency and raw single-thread capability, pitted against a desktop part with more physical cores and threads.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are decisively in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench benchmark. The data suggests the 255HX is the superior choice for users prioritizing modern multi-threaded rendering, encryption, and floating-point workloads. Its 11.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (43162 vs 38828) is a significant margin, showing that its 20-core Arrow Lake architecture outperforms the 24-core Raptor Lake desktop processor in this metric. The i9-13900 is the pick only for specific integer math or data compression tasks, where it wins by 24.6% and 5% respectively. For a laptop part to beat a desktop i9 in most benchmarks, the 255HX represents a substantial architectural advancement. The i9-13900 remains relevant for desktop users with workloads that favor its specific configuration, but the data indicates the 255HX is the faster overall processor.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different generations and are built for different platforms. The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core i9-13900 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. This process advantage is a key factor in the 255HX’s performance-per-watt and its ability to achieve higher scores despite a lower 55W TDP compared to the i9-13900’s 65W TDP.

The core configurations differ significantly. The 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the i9-13900 has 24 cores and 32 threads, meaning the desktop part has more physical cores and supports Hyper-Threading, which the mobile part lacks. Despite this, the 255HX still wins in multi-threaded tests. Cache layouts also differ: the 255HX has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The i9-13900 has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a larger 36 MB of shared L3. The 255HX features a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.20 GHz, whereas the i9-13900 has a much lower base clock of 2000.00 MHz but a higher boost of 5.60 GHz.

Platform support is another major divider. The 255HX uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket and supports only DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9-13900 uses the Intel Socket 1700 and supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The i9-13900 also supports ECC memory, while the 255HX does not. The mobile chip has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the desktop part has 16. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the 255HX featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the i9-13900 using UHD Graphics 770. The 255HX is an unlocked multiplier part, while the i9-13900 is locked. The i9-13900 has a launch MSRP of $549.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates in nearly every category, but the nature of its wins reveals specific strengths. Its largest victory is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where it scores 422 against the i9-13900's 186, a 126.9% difference. This points to a massive advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded logic. It also excels in extended instructions, scoring 44240 versus 32760 (35% ahead), and floating-point math, with a 40.2% lead (168930 vs 120492). For content creation, the 255HX’s consistent 11.2% lead across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single and multi-core, makes it the definitive choice for rendering and 3D modeling workloads.

The Intel Core i9-13900 carves out a narrow niche. Its only wins are in Passmark data compression (577285 vs 548248, a 5% lead) and Passmark integer math (176107 vs 132810, a 24.6% lead). This suggests that for workloads like file archiving or specific simulation tasks that rely heavily on integer arithmetic, the i9-13900's higher core count and thread count can be leveraged effectively. In the Passmark multithread test, the 255HX wins by 11.1% (50739 vs 45680), and in the physics test, it wins by 23.3% (3062 vs 2484). The i9-13900 is not a general-purpose winner, but it holds a specific edge for these integer-centric tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is significantly faster, scoring 43162 points compared to the Intel Core i9-13900's 38828 points, a 11.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i9-13900 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the data shows it wins two tests: Passmark data compression (577285 vs 548248) and Passmark integer math (176107 vs 132810).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 126.9% higher than the Core i9-13900 (422 vs 186).

Q: How does the core count compare?

A: The Core i9-13900 has more cores and threads, with 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Despite this, the 255HX wins most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in process node and TDP?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255HX is built on a 3 nm process and has a 55W TDP, while the Core i9-13900 is on a 10 nm process with a 65W TDP.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900 has a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz compared to the Core Ultra 7 255HX's 5.20 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data provides a clear picture of where each processor excels. The Core Ultra 7 255HX shows a sweeping victory across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4350 against the i9-13900's 3913, and in single-core, it wins 614 to 552. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, with the 255HX scoring 18128 versus 16307 in multi-core and 2559 versus 2302 in single-core. The most telling result is Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 255HX scores 43162, a full 11.2% ahead of the i9-13900's 38828. In single-core R23, the 255HX also leads with 6093 against 5481.

The Passmark suite shows a more nuanced picture. The 255HX wins decisively in data encryption (41662 vs 35242, an 18.2% lead), extended instructions (44240 vs 32760, a 35% lead), and floating-point math (168930 vs 120492, a 40.2% lead). Its most dominant win is in find prime numbers, where it scores 422 compared to the i9-13900's 186. The 255HX also wins the multithread test (50739 vs 45680, an 11.1% lead), physics (3062 vs 2484, a 23.3% lead), and random string sorting (66420 vs 64396, a 3.1% lead). In single-thread performance, the 255HX wins with 4645 against 4309, a 7.8% margin.

However, the i9-13900 demonstrates its strength in two specific areas. In Passmark data compression, it scores 577285, beating the 255HX's 548248 by 5%. More significantly, in Passmark integer math, the i9-13900 scores 176107, a substantial 24.6% lead over the 255HX's 132810. These wins show that the desktop processor's 24 cores and 32 threads can still be leveraged for raw integer throughput, even if it loses in more modern, efficiency-oriented benchmarks. Overall, the data confirms the 255HX is the stronger all-around performer, with the i9-13900 holding a niche for specific integer-heavy desktop workloads.