AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

# AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates the head-to-head benchmark comparison, winning 14 of 15 tests against the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX, which manages a single victory. However, the AMD part still holds its ground as a 95th-percentile CPU, matching the Intel chip's percentile ranking despite a lower average benchmark score of 81,103 versus 79,574. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the one AMD win—in integer math—shows that the Zen 4 architecture retains specific strengths even against Intel's newer 3 nm design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX claims exactly one benchmark victory: PassMark integer math, scoring 189,221 against Intel's 164,839, a 14.8% advantage. This is a meaningful win for workloads that rely heavily on integer arithmetic, such as database operations, financial modeling, and certain types of scientific computing. The AMD chip's 16 cores with 32 threads—its 2:1 thread-to-core ratio—likely contributes to this result, as integer-heavy tasks often scale well with additional threads.

Everywhere else, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus takes the crown. The Intel part wins across single-threaded, multi-threaded, and specialized workloads. Its largest margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 519 versus AMD's 251, a staggering 51.6% difference. Floating-point math is another blowout: 201,773 versus 113,921, a 43.5% gap. Physics simulation also favors Intel heavily, with 3,387 points against AMD's 2,104, a 37.9% edge.

For users prioritizing Cinebench rendering, Intel's multi-core advantage is substantial: 39,684 versus 32,521 in R23 multi-core (an 18.1% lead), and 5,981 versus 5,355 in R15 multi-core (10.5% ahead). Single-core performance also favors Intel, with R23 single-core at 2,356 versus 1,917 (18.6% ahead) and R15 single-core at 340 versus 292 (14.1% ahead). The Intel chip even wins in data compression, though narrowly, at 658,724 versus 650,984 (just 1.2% ahead), and random string sorting at 80,327 versus 75,381 (6.2% ahead).

The use-case split is stark: AMD wins only in integer-heavy compute, while Intel wins in everything else, including rendering, physics, encryption, and single-threaded responsiveness.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and 13,140 million transistors. It features 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon 610M, and the chip is built for the AMD Socket FL1. Notably, it does not support ECC memory.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, by contrast, uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh design on TSMC's 3 nm process, with a larger die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. It has 24 cores but only 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading—a 1:1 thread-to-core ratio. Base clock is 2.70 GHz, boost clock is 5.50 GHz. Cache configuration differs greatly: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3. Memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 5 is provided with 20 lanes. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units. This chip supports ECC memory, a notable feature for workstation use, and uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket.

The process node difference—3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for AMD—helps explain the Intel chip's higher transistor count and denser design. The lack of SMT on Intel is a deliberate choice that favors power efficiency and higher per-core clocks, while AMD's SMT doubles thread count for parallel workloads. The Intel chip also has a significantly larger L1 and L2 per core, which likely boosts single-threaded performance, while AMD's larger L3 (64 MB versus 36 MB) may help with cache-heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results paint a clear picture of Intel's dominance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 39,684 against AMD's 32,521, a 18.1% lead. The gap narrows in R15 multi-core, where Intel scores 5,981 versus 5,355, a 10.5% edge, suggesting the workload's scaling characteristics favor AMD's thread count at lower iteration counts. Single-core results are similarly lopsided: R23 single-core sees Intel at 2,356 versus 1,917 (18.6% lead), and R15 single-core at 340 versus 292 (14.1% lead).

PassMark tests reveal the widest margins. The find prime numbers test is the most dramatic: Intel scores 519, more than double AMD's 251, a 51.6% gap. Floating-point math shows Intel at 201,773 versus 113,921, a 43.5% advantage. Physics simulation favors Intel at 3,387 versus 2,104, a 37.9% lead. Single-thread performance gives Intel 4,951 versus 3,874, a 21.8% edge. Data encryption sees Intel at 50,008 versus 39,318, a 21.4% lead. Multithreaded performance shows Intel at 59,439 versus 49,731, a 16.3% advantage.

AMD's lone win in integer math is notable: 189,221 versus 164,839, a 14.8% margin. This suggests that AMD's SMT implementation and 32 threads provide a real advantage in integer-heavy parallel workloads. However, the Intel chip wins in the remaining tests: data compression (658,724 versus 650,984, just 1.2% ahead), extended instructions (51,290 versus 47,802, 6.8% ahead), and random string sorting (80,327 versus 75,381, 6.2% ahead).

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 14 of 15 head-to-head tests. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins only PassMark integer math, with a 14.8% advantage.

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

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 519 versus AMD's 251, a 51.6% difference. Floating-point math is the second-largest gap at 43.5%.

Q: How do they compare in multi-core rendering?

A: Intel leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 39,684 versus 32,521 (18.1% ahead) and in R15 multi-core with 5,981 versus 5,355 (10.5% ahead).

Q: Does AMD have any advantages at all?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins PassMark integer math with 189,221 points versus Intel's 164,839, a 14.8% lead. It also has more threads (32 versus 24) and a larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 36 MB).

Q: What about single-threaded performance?

A: Intel is clearly ahead, scoring 4,951 in PassMark single-thread versus AMD's 3,874 (21.8% ahead), and 2,356 versus 1,917 in Cinebench R23 single-core (18.6% ahead).

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX does not.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor for nearly every workload. Its wins span rendering, physics, encryption, single-threaded tasks, and even data compression. The 51.6% lead in prime number finding and 43.5% lead in floating-point math indicate a fundamental architectural advantage that AMD cannot overcome with its higher thread count.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX if your primary workload is integer math, where it leads by 14.8%, or if you need a 64 MB L3 cache for cache-sensitive applications. Its 32 threads may also benefit specific parallel workloads that scale with thread count rather than raw per-core performance.

Pick the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus for virtually everything else. It offers better single-threaded performance (21.8% ahead in PassMark), superior multi-core rendering (18.1% ahead in Cinebench R23), faster physics simulation (37.9% ahead), and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s). It also supports ECC memory, making it the more versatile choice for workstation-class mobile systems. With a 95th-percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 79,574, it sits among top-tier desktop processors like the Intel Core i9-14900K, confirming its flagship status in the mobile segment.