Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H represent two distinct approaches within Intel’s mobile lineup. The 290HX Plus is a high-core-count part aimed at heavy parallel workloads, while the X7 368H is a more power-conscious processor with a different architectural foundation. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split: the 290HX Plus dominates multi-threaded and compute-heavy tests, while the X7 368H takes a notable win in certain single-core Cinebench runs. This analysis uses only the database measurements and specification fields to compare the two.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database. Its victories span every PassMark workload category and most Cinebench tests. The largest advantages appear in data compression, random string sorting, and Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it leads by more than 110 percent. The 290HX Plus also takes PassMark single-thread with a 23.6 percent margin, so its advantage is not limited to heavily parallel tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 2 of the 17 comparisons, both in single-core Cinebench tests. It leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 15.2 percent and in Cinebench R23 single-core by 40.9 percent. These wins are specific to that benchmark family and do not carry over to PassMark single-thread, where the 290HX Plus leads by 23.6 percent. The X7 368H also trails in multi-core Cinebench runs, though the margin narrows in R23 compared to R15 and R20.

For workloads that scale with core count, the 290HX Plus is the clear choice based on the data. For users who prioritize a specific single-core Cinebench result, the X7 368H shows a measurable advantage in those two tests. Otherwise, the 290HX Plus holds the overall performance lead across the recorded benchmark suite.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different silicon. The 290HX Plus is part of Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The X7 368H belongs to Core Ultra Series 3, codenamed Panther Lake, with the architecture listed as Panther Lake and built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Both use 3 nm manufacturing but from different foundries.

Core counts differ substantially. The 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so core count equals thread count in both cases. The 290HX Plus packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the X7 368H.

Cache layouts also differ. Both parts have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The 290HX Plus has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. The X7 368H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the 290HX Plus aligns with its higher core count and overall performance profile.

Memory support splits the pair as well. The 290HX Plus uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The X7 368H uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, a 50 percent higher figure despite the lower core count. ECC memory is supported on the 290HX Plus but not on the X7 368H. PCIe lane counts differ: the 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes, while the X7 368H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics are different as well. The 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the X7 368H uses Arc B390. The database does not include execution unit counts for the X7 368H graphics.

Sockets and power envelopes separate the two further. The 290HX Plus uses Intel BGA 2114 with a 55 W TDP, while the X7 368H uses Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP. The multiplier is unlocked on the 290HX Plus and locked on the X7 368H. The 290HX Plus has a 2.70 GHz base clock and 5.50 GHz boost clock. The X7 368H has a 2.00 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock. The X7 368H released earlier, with a January 2026 date compared to March 2026 for the 290HX Plus. Both are listed as active production parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the database is in PassMark random string sorting, where the 290HX Plus scores 80327 against 38093, a 110.9 percent advantage. Data compression follows closely with 658724 versus 312927, a 110.5 percent lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 5981 against 2844, a 110.3 percent margin. These three tests all exceed double the score of the X7 368H.

Encryption and extended instruction workloads also favor the 290HX Plus heavily. PassMark data encryption shows 50008 versus 25228, a 98.2 percent lead. Extended instructions show 51290 versus 25669, a 99.8 percent lead. Floating point math delivers 201773 versus 105681, a 90.9 percent margin. Integer math shows 164839 versus 88083, an 87.1 percent lead. PassMark multi-thread scores 59439 against 32956, an 80.4 percent margin.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 21198 versus 11852, a 78.9 percent lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2992 versus 1673, a 78.8 percent margin, which is notable because it means the 290HX Plus wins both multi-core and single-core in R20. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows to 39684 versus 28221, a 40.6 percent lead. Prime number finding shows 519 versus 321, a 61.7 percent margin. Physics shows 3387 versus 2857, an 18.6 percent lead, the smallest multi-core margin in the set.

The two X7 368H wins come in Cinebench R15 single-core, 401 versus 340, a 15.2 percent margin, and Cinebench R23 single-core, 3984 versus 2356, a 40.9 percent margin. These are the only tests where the X7 368H leads. In PassMark single-thread, the 290HX Plus scores 4951 against 4005, a 23.6 percent lead, which shows the X7 368H single-core advantage does not generalize across benchmark suites.

The average benchmark score for the 290HX Plus is 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The X7 368H averages 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 290HX Plus include the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 79371 and 0.3 percent lower, the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80041 and 0.6 percent higher, the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79097 and 0.6 percent lower, and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80671 and 1.4 percent higher. The X7 368H sits near the Intel Core 7 253PE at 40557 and 0.1 percent lower, the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40585 and 0.2 percent lower, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H at 40431 and 0.2 percent higher, and the Intel Xeon 6507P at 40426 and 0.2 percent higher.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither part supports additional threads beyond its core count.

Q: Why does the X7 368H win some Cinebench single-core tests despite lower clock speeds?

A: The X7 368H records higher scores in Cinebench R15 single-core and R23 single-core. It has a 5.00 GHz boost clock compared to 5.50 GHz on the 290HX Plus, yet it leads by 15.2 percent in R15 and 40.9 percent in R23. The database does not specify the architectural reason, but the results show a clear single-core advantage for the X7 368H in those specific tests.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The X7 368H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The 290HX Plus supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Does the 290HX Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory is listed as supported on the 290HX Plus. The X7 368H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The 290HX Plus has a 55 W TDP, while the X7 368H has a 25 W TDP. The 290HX Plus also uses a different socket, Intel BGA 2114, compared to Intel BGA 2540 on the X7 368H.

Q: How close are the two processors in overall average score?

A: The 290HX Plus averages 79574 across its benchmark set, placing in the 95th percentile. The X7 368H averages 40518, placing in the 87th percentile. The 290HX Plus nearly doubles the X7 368H average.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category except process node and L1 cache size. Both use a 3 nm process and have 192 KB of L1 per core. The 290HX Plus uses a TSMC process node, while the X7 368H uses an Intel process node. Core and thread counts are 24 and 24 for the 290HX Plus versus 16 and 16 for the X7 368H. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

TDP differs by 30 W: 55 W for the 290HX Plus and 25 W for the X7 368H. Sockets are different, BGA 2114 versus BGA 2540. L2 cache is 3 MB per core on the 290HX Plus versus 2.5 MB per core on the X7 368H. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on the 290HX Plus only. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG 64EU versus Arc B390. The multiplier is unlocked on the 290HX Plus and locked on the X7 368H. The 290HX Plus has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die; the database lists no transistor or die size data for the X7 368H. Release dates are March 2026 for the 290HX Plus and January 2026 for the X7 368H.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as the stronger processor for nearly all recorded workloads. It wins 15 of 17 benchmark comparisons, including every PassMark test and all multi-core Cinebench runs. Its 95th percentile ranking and 79574 average score place it in a different performance class than the X7 368H, which sits at the 87th percentile with a 40518 average. The 290HX Plus also offers more cores, more cache, higher clocks, ECC support, more PCIe lanes, and an unlocked multiplier. Its 55 W TDP and larger die reflect the higher power envelope required for that performance.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a narrower but real set of advantages. It wins two single-core Cinebench tests, with a 40.9 percent lead in R23 single-core and a 15.2 percent lead in R15 single-core. It delivers higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s, which may matter for memory-sensitive tasks. It also runs at 25 W TDP, which makes it a lower-power part by specification, and it uses a newer architecture generation in Panther Lake. Its integrated graphics are listed as Arc B390, a different part from the Arc Xe-LPG 64EU on the 290HX Plus.

For multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and math-heavy workloads, the 290HX Plus is the obvious pick from the recorded results. For a workload that relies specifically on Cinebench single-core performance, the X7 368H shows a measurable edge. The 290HX Plus also leads PassMark single-thread by 23.6 percent, so the X7 368H single-core wins do not extend to that metric. The choice comes down to whether the user needs the massive multi-core throughput of the 290HX Plus or the lower 25 W TDP and specific single-core Cinebench results of the X7 368H.