Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database separates these two mobile processors into distinct performance tiers. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H takes only 3. The 290HX Plus posts an average benchmark score of 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i9-14900KF at a 0.3% higher average score. The 378H records a 47468 average, sitting in the 89th percentile, with the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 just 0.1% ahead. The 290HX Plus is the choice for multi-threaded workloads, rendering, and compute-heavy tasks. The 378H, with its dramatically higher single-core Cinebench scores, suits lightly threaded workloads where per-core speed matters most, such as certain legacy applications or tasks that cannot utilize many cores. The 378H also draws significantly less power, with a 25 TDP versus 55 TDP for the 290HX Plus, making it the more efficient option for thin-and-light designs.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same 3 nm process node, but they are built by different foundries. The 290HX Plus uses TSMC as its foundry, while the 378H uses Intel's own fabs. The 290HX Plus is codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, part of Core Ultra Series 2, while the 378H is codenamed Panther Lake, part of Core Ultra Series 3. The 290HX Plus integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the 378H has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The core configurations differ substantially: the 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, so thread counts equal core counts. Cache hierarchies differ, with the 290HX Plus offering 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, while the 378H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The 290HX Plus supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory, while the 378H supports LPDDR5X over dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe connectivity differs sharply: 20 CPU lanes for the 290HX Plus versus 4 for the 378H. Integrated graphics also diverge, with the 290HX Plus carrying Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 378H carries an Arc B390 GPU. The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, the 378H does not. Sockets differ as well: BGA 2114 for the 290HX Plus, BGA 2540 for the 378H. The 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz from a 2.70 GHz base, while the 378H boosts to 5.00 GHz from a 2.00 GHz base.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest multicore wins belong to the 290HX Plus. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5981 against 3281, a 82.3% advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 21198 versus 13672, a 55% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the gap to 21.9%, with 39684 against 32553. The PassMark suite reinforces this pattern. Integer math delivers 164839 versus 92603, a 78% lead. Floating point math shows 201773 versus 114500, a 76.2% lead. Random string sorting is 79.9% higher at 80327 versus 44648. Data compression is 70.4% higher at 658724 versus 386591. Data encryption is 67.6% higher at 50008 versus 29840. Extended instructions are 63.8% higher at 51290 versus 31315. PassMark multithread shows 59439 versus 38298, a 55.2% gap. Find prime numbers is 45.4% higher at 519 versus 357. PassMark single-thread favors the 290HX Plus by 11.2%, with 4951 versus 4453.

The 378H wins the remaining tests, but they are concentrated in single-core Cinebench workloads. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 462 against 340, a 26.4% lead for the 378H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the largest swing: 4595 versus 2356, a 48.7% advantage for the 378H. The third win is narrow: PassMark physics at 3404 versus 3387, a 0.5% margin. Notably, Cinebench R20 single-core does not follow the same pattern. There the 290HX Plus wins 2992 versus 1929, a 55.1% lead. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions is striking: the 378H leads in R15 and R23 single-core but trails heavily in R20 single-core. The 290HX Plus also wins PassMark single-thread, so the 378H's single-core advantage is specific to certain Cinebench versions rather than universal.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do the caches compare?

A: Both have 192 KB of L1 per core. The 290HX Plus has 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. The 378H has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s, using LPDDR5X. The 290HX Plus uses DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s. Only the 290HX Plus supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the clock speeds?

A: The 290HX Plus has a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. The 378H has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has the better average benchmark score?

A: The 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, placing it in the 95th percentile. The 378H has an average of 47468, placing it in the 89th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The 290HX Plus has Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The 378H has Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The 290HX Plus wins across nearly every category that scales with core count. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore all favor it, with the largest margin at 82.3% in R15 multicore. PassMark tests for integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and prime number finding all go to the 290HX Plus, with margins ranging from 45.4% to 79.9%. PassMark multithread also favors it by 55.2%. This processor is clearly suited for workloads that can use all 24 cores, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and heavy multitasking. Its higher TDP of 55 W indicates it can sustain higher performance under load, and its 36 MB of L3 cache provides ample shared capacity for multi-threaded data sets. The unlocked multiplier allows tuning for users who want to push beyond stock clocks.

The 378H wins in Cinebench R15 single-core and R23 single-core, with margins of 26.4% and 48.7% respectively. It also edges out the 290HX Plus in PassMark physics by 0.5%. These wins point to scenarios where a single thread dominates and the faster per-core execution matters more than total core count. The 378H's 5.00 GHz boost clock and 18 MB of L3 cache, combined with its 16-core design, make it a stronger candidate for lightly threaded productivity applications, certain audio production tools, and legacy software that does not scale beyond a few threads. Its 25 W TDP makes it substantially more power-efficient, which is important for battery life in mobile systems. The higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s also benefits memory-bound single-threaded tasks. The 378H uses an Intel foundry process, while the 290HX Plus uses TSMC, but both are 3 nm.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: 24 versus 16. Thread count: 24 versus 16. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 55 W versus 25 W. Socket: BGA 2114 versus BGA 2540. Codename: Arrow Lake-HX Refresh versus Panther Lake. Generation: Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) versus Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H). Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 17,800 million versus not recorded. Die size: 243 mm² versus not recorded. L2 cache per core: 3 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 cache shared: 36 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC support: yes versus no. PCIe lanes: 20 versus 4. Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU versus Arc B390. Multiplier: unlocked versus locked. Part number: SADSS versus unknown. Release dates also differ, with the 290HX Plus releasing on 2026-03-16 and the 378H on 2026-04-03. Both are active production parts in the mobile segment. The 290HX Plus carries a 95th percentile rating, the 378H an 89th percentile. Average benchmark score: 79574 versus 47468. Nearest rivals also differ: the 290HX Plus trades within 1.4% of the Intel Core i9-14900KF, AMD EPYC 7413, Intel Core i9-14900K, and Intel Xeon w5-2565X, while the 378H trades within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, Intel Core i7-13700KF, Intel Core Ultra 7 265T, and Intel Core i9-12900F.