AMD Ryzen 7 9700F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F across every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel part wins all 11 recorded tests, with a lead in the average benchmark score of 79574 versus 69996 for the AMD processor. That places the Intel chip at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F sits at the 94th percentile. Despite the closeness in percentile ranking, the per-test deltas show the Intel part is not merely slightly ahead but often substantially ahead, particularly in workloads that scale with core count and parallel execution.

The Ryzen 7 9700F is best suited for scenarios where its 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 5.50 GHz boost clock and 65 W TDP fits within a constrained thermal envelope, and where the user prioritizes the AM5 platform with its unlocked multiplier and PCIe Gen 5, 24-lane CPU connectivity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, with 24 cores and 24 threads, a 55 W TDP, and a larger shared L3 cache, is the choice for compute-heavy tasks that exploit parallelism, such as data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. The data does not support any scenario where the AMD part wins a benchmark, so the verdict hinges on platform, power, and form factor rather than performance. The Intel chip is a mobile part on BGA 2114, while the AMD chip is a desktop part on AM5, which fundamentally changes the systems they can be placed into.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Granite Ridge codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. Its cache layout is per-core: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It has no integrated graphics, and its PCIe implementation is Gen 5 with 24 CPU-only lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor count is more than double at 17,800 million, spread across a 243 mm² die. Its cache is also per-core but larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s on the same dual-channel DDR5 setup. Unlike the AMD part, the Intel chip includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, matching the AMD chip on that feature. The Intel part's PCIe implementation is Gen 5 but with 20 CPU-only lanes, four fewer than the AMD chip.

The process node difference (3 nm versus 4 nm) and the massive transistor count gap suggest the Intel part is a much larger and more complex silicon, which aligns with its higher core count. The AMD chip's smaller die and lower transistor count point to a more power-efficient design at the per-core level, though the Intel chip's TDP is rated lower at 55 W versus 65 W for the AMD part. The Intel chip's boost clock matches the AMD chip at 5.50 GHz, but its base clock is lower at 2.70 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The Intel chip's thread count equals its core count at 24, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, while the AMD chip has 16 threads from 8 cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus comes in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where it scores 519 against the AMD's 183, a delta of -64.7% for the AMD chip. That is the most lopsided result in the dataset. Floating-point math also shows a massive gap: Intel scores 201773 versus AMD's 77955, a -61.4% delta. Data encryption follows with Intel at 50008 versus AMD's 21488, a -57% delta. These three tests highlight the Intel part's advantage in heavily parallel, math-intensive workloads.

The Intel chip wins the multi-threaded benchmark decisively, scoring 59439 against the AMD's 36470, a -38.6% delta. This is expected given the 24 cores versus 8 cores. Random string sorting shows Intel at 80327 versus AMD's 45890, a -42.9% delta. Physics testing gives Intel 3387 versus AMD's 2122, a -37.3% delta. Data compression, a common workload in file archiving and databases, shows Intel at 658724 versus AMD's 421988, a -35.9% delta. Extended instructions, which test SIMD and special instruction sets, give Intel 51290 versus AMD's 33688, a -34.3% delta. Integer math is the closest of the major parallel tests: Intel scores 164839 versus AMD's 120788, a -26.7% delta.

The single-threaded tests are the only place where the AMD chip comes close. The passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread tests both record the same scores: Intel at 4951 and AMD at 4691, a delta of only -5.3%. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are nearly equivalent, with the Intel part holding a modest edge despite its lower base clock. The AMD chip's higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz) does not overcome the Intel part's architectural efficiency in single-threaded execution.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clock: 3.80 GHz for AMD, 2.70 GHz for Intel. Boost clock is identical at 5.50 GHz for both. TDP: 65 W for AMD, 55 W for Intel. Socket: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel BGA 2114. Architecture: Zen 5 versus no architecture name listed (the Intel part uses Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename). Process node: 4 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel. Transistors: 8,315 million versus 17,800 million. Die size: 70.6 mm² versus 243 mm².

Cache hierarchy differs in all levels: L1 is 80 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel; L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD versus 3 MB per core for Intel; L3 is 32 MB shared for AMD versus 36 MB shared for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 102.4 GB/s for Intel. PCIe lanes differ: 24 for AMD versus 20 for Intel, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics: none for AMD, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for Intel. Market segment: Desktop for AMD, Mobile for Intel. Release date: 2025-09-15 for AMD versus 2026-03-16 for Intel. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $289, while the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have unlocked multipliers and support ECC memory, and both use DDR5 on a dual-channel bus.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel chip in multi-threaded performance?

A: In the passmark_multithread test, the Intel chip scores 59439 versus the AMD chip's 36470, a delta of -38.6% for the AMD part.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD chip wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the Intel chip wins all 11 recorded tests. The AMD chip's closest result is the single-threaded tests, where it trails by only -5.3%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel chip has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD chip has 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR5.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus have ECC memory support recorded as true.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip is built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins every benchmark in the dataset, but the magnitude of its victories varies by workload type. The largest deltas are in prime number finding (-64.7%), floating-point math (-61.4%), and data encryption (-57%). These are workloads that scale almost linearly with core count and are heavily parallel. The Intel chip's 24 cores, larger L2 and L3 caches, and higher memory bandwidth all contribute to these results. For any application that involves data compression, encryption, scientific computing, or physics simulation, the Intel part is the clear choice based on the recorded scores.

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F does not win any benchmark, but its strengths are relative rather than absolute. The single-threaded deficit is only -5.3%, meaning the two chips are nearly interchangeable for everyday tasks that use one or two cores, such as web browsing, office work, or light gaming. The AMD part also has a lower TDP (65 W versus 55 W for Intel), but the Intel part's TDP is actually lower, so the AMD chip does not have a power advantage in the data. The AMD chip's higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz) suggests better responsiveness at lower loads, though the benchmarks do not isolate that behavior.

The desktop versus mobile distinction is the most practical differentiator. The AMD Ryzen 7 9700F is a desktop processor on AM5, suitable for a build with discrete graphics and an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a mobile processor on BGA 2114, designed for laptops or all-in-one systems, and it includes integrated Arc graphics, which the AMD part lacks entirely. Users who need a high-core-count mobile CPU with integrated graphics and top-tier parallel performance should choose the Intel part. Users who are building a desktop system on AM5 and prefer a lower transistor count, smaller die, and a part with a launch MSRP of $289 should consider the AMD chip, accepting that it will trail in multi-threaded workloads by roughly a third or more in most recorded tests. The data does not show any scenario where the AMD chip outperforms the Intel part, so the choice comes down to platform requirements and the specific need for integrated graphics versus a discrete GPU.