Intel Core i9-14900HX vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900HX scores 30055 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 98.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon Phi 7290's 15163.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between these two chips?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core i9-14900HX scores 4175 versus 485 for the Xeon Phi 7290, a 760.8% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core gap is much smaller at 1.9% (2181.5 vs 2140).

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Xeon Phi 7290 wins?

A: Yes, the Xeon Phi 7290 wins three recorded tests: data compression (564535 vs 539965, a 4.4% lead), extended instructions (41517 vs 31247, a 24.7% lead), and random string sorting (68593 vs 60861, an 11.3% lead).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads, despite losing most benchmark comparisons.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-14900HX boosts to 5.80 GHz, while the Xeon Phi 7290 tops out at 1.70 GHz. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz and 1.50 GHz respectively.

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

A: The Core i9-14900HX records an average benchmark score of 56004, while the Xeon Phi 7290 averages 53469. Both sit at the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split between these two processors based on workload character. The Intel Core i9-14900HX wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with decisive margins in most categories. Its single-thread dominance is extreme: a 760.8% lead in PassMark single-thread performance. For any task that relies on per-core speed, responsive interaction, or modern instruction efficiency, the Core i9-14900HX is the only rational choice from this data.

The Xeon Phi 7290, despite having 72 cores and 288 threads, only manages to win three specialized tests: data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting. These wins suggest its many-core architecture retains utility for specific throughput-oriented workloads that scale well with raw parallelism. However, even in multi-threaded Cinebench tests, the Core i9-14900HX leads substantially: 199.3% in R15 multi-core, 145.2% in R20 multi-core, and 98.2% in R23 multi-core.

The verdict from the recorded data: the Core i9-14900HX is the superior processor across the overwhelming majority of measurable scenarios. The Xeon Phi 7290 should only be considered for workloads that specifically match its three winning categories, and even then, the overall average benchmark scores (56004 vs 53469) favor the Core i9-14900HX by 4.7%. Users building for general productivity, development, content creation, or mixed workloads should select the Core i9-14900HX based on this benchmark evidence.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core i9-14900HX comes in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4175 against 485, a 760.8% delta. This is the defining gap between the two architectures. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R15 single-core (310.5 vs 215, 44.4% lead) and R20 single-core (2204 vs 898, 145.4% lead).

Multi-core results also favor the Core i9-14900HX, though the margin varies by test generation. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i9-14900HX scores 4574 versus 1528, a 199.3% advantage. R20 multi-core shows 15616 vs 6368, a 145.2% lead. R23 multi-core narrows to 30055 vs 15163, a 98.2% gap.

PassMark multi-thread follows the same trend: 43778 for the Core i9-14900HX versus 17839 for the Xeon Phi 7290, a 145.4% difference. Floating point math also heavily favors the Core i9-14900HX at 112273 vs 47417, a 136.8% lead. Integer math shows a smaller but still substantial 24% advantage (157375 vs 126922). Data encryption sees the Core i9-14900HX at 32619 against 12505, a 160.8% win. Prime number finding favors the Core i9-14900HX by 69.3% (193 vs 114). Physics simulation shows a modest 16.9% lead for the Core i9-14900HX (2638 vs 2257).

The Xeon Phi 7290 claims three wins. Data compression shows 564535 versus 539965, a 4.4% margin. Extended instructions deliver 41517 vs 31247, a 24.7% lead for the Xeon Phi. Random string sorting completes the set at 68593 vs 60861, an 11.3% advantage. These wins share a common trait: they are throughput-oriented, highly parallel workloads where core count can compensate for per-core weakness.

Specification Differences

Core and thread counts differ sharply: the Core i9-14900HX has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads. Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The Core i9-14900HX runs at 2.20 GHz base and 5.80 GHz boost. The Xeon Phi 7290 operates at 1.50 GHz base and 1.70 GHz boost.

Power envelopes are far apart. The Core i9-14900HX carries a 55 W TDP, while the Xeon Phi 7290 draws 245 W. Socket types differ: the Core i9-14900HX uses Intel BGA 1964, the Xeon Phi 7290 uses Intel Socket 3647.

Memory support shows common ground with DDR4 for both, but the Core i9-14900HX also supports DDR5 and uses a dual-channel memory bus. The Xeon Phi 7290 lists only DDR4 with no memory bus specification recorded. Both support ECC memory.

The Core i9-14900HX includes integrated UHD Graphics 770 and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon Phi 7290 has no integrated graphics and no PCIe specification recorded. The Core i9-14900HX has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon Phi 7290 does not.

Market segments differ: the Core i9-14900HX targets mobile, while the Xeon Phi 7290 targets server and workstation. Release dates are also distinct, with the Core i9-14900HX appearing in 2024 and the Xeon Phi 7290 in 2016.

Architecture Differences

The Core i9-14900HX uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel. The Xeon Phi 7290 uses Knights Landing architecture on a 14 nm process, also from Intel. The Xeon Phi 7290 has 8,000 million transistors, while the Core i9-14900HX does not have a transistor count recorded. Die size favors the Core i9-14900HX at 257 mm²; the Xeon Phi 7290 has no die size recorded.

Cache layouts differ substantially per core. The Core i9-14900HX provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The Xeon Phi 7290 provides 32 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with no L3 cache recorded.

The Core i9-14900HX belongs to the Core 14th Gen series with the Raptor Lake-HX refresh generation. The Xeon Phi 7290 is part of the Xeon Phi line with the Knights Landing generation. The Core i9-14900HX uses a 24-core hybrid arrangement with 32 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7290 relies on 72 simpler cores running 288 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-14900HX dominates in every category that depends on single-thread speed or modern instruction efficiency. Its 760.8% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the clear pick for interactive workloads, general application responsiveness, and software that is not highly parallelized. The Cinebench R23 single-core result (2181.5 vs 2140, only 1.9% apart) shows that both chips can handle lightly threaded tasks, but the PassMark and R15/R20 single-core gaps demonstrate where the Core i9-14900HX pulls far ahead.

For multi-threaded productivity, the Core i9-14900HX wins across all three Cinebench versions and PassMark multi-thread. The 98.2% to 199.3% margins indicate that its 24 cores with high clocks outperform the Xeon Phi's 72 cores with low clocks in these rendering workloads. Content creation, 3D rendering, and compilation tasks would favor the Core i9-14900HX based on this data.

The Xeon Phi 7290 wins in data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting. These are specific, highly parallel workloads where the 288 threads can be kept busy. The 4.4% compression lead and 11.3% sorting lead are modest, while the 24.7% extended instructions lead is more meaningful. For users running exactly these workloads at scale, the Xeon Phi 7290 has a measurable advantage.

The Xeon Phi 7290 also holds its own in Cinebench R23 single-core, trailing by only 1.9%, which suggests its per-core performance in that specific test is competitive despite the much lower clock. However, the overall pattern from 17 benchmarks and 14 wins for the Core i9-14900HX makes the recommendation straightforward: choose the Core i9-14900HX for general use and most specialized tasks, choose the Xeon Phi 7290 only for the three workload types where it demonstrably leads.