Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H are both mobile processors, but the data positions them in entirely different performance classes. The 290HX Plus wins every single recorded benchmark comparison, 17 in total, with no wins for the 388H. The average benchmark score for the 290HX Plus is 79574, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 388H sits at 44466 and the 88th percentile. This is a decisive gap in overall performance, not a marginal one.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the clear choice for anyone whose workload depends on raw multi-threaded performance. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 55 W TDP, deliver scores that dwarf the 388H. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 290HX Plus scores 39684 against 18911 for the 388H, a 109.8% advantage. This is a processor designed for heavy rendering, compilation, and content creation tasks where every additional core translates directly into reduced wait times.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H serves a different purpose. With 16 cores and 16 threads inside a 25 W TDP, it is the more efficient part, suited for thinner and lighter systems where thermal headroom is limited. It still posts respectable scores, such as 18911 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 36811 in Passmark multithread, placing it in the 88th percentile. For users who need a capable mobile CPU without the power draw of a flagship HX part, the 388H holds its own.

The 290HX Plus also leads in single-threaded performance, though by a smaller margin. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2356 beats the 388H's 2200.5 by 7.1%, and its Passmark single-thread score of 4951 beats 4280 by 15.7%. The 388H is not a slow chip in absolute terms, but the 290HX Plus is faster in every measured category.

Where Each One Wins

The 290HX Plus dominates in every benchmark category recorded, but the magnitude of its wins varies. The largest advantages appear in multi-core and throughput-heavy workloads. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 102.4% lead, and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 109.8%. Passmark data compression favors the 290HX Plus by 82.1%, with scores of 658724 versus 361763. Random string sorting follows at 82.5% (80327 vs 44010). These are tasks that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the 290HX Plus has the resources to exploit them fully.

The 388H wins in no benchmark, but its closest margins are in single-threaded and physics tests. Passmark physics shows only a 5% difference (3387 vs 3226), and Cinebench R23 single-core is 7.1% apart. This indicates that in lightly threaded tasks, the 388H's architecture is competitive, and the performance gap narrows considerably. For general desktop use, web browsing, or office applications, the 388H would feel nearly as responsive as the 290HX Plus, despite the large multi-core gap.

The 290HX Plus also leads in memory-sensitive operations. Data encryption shows a 75.5% advantage (50008 vs 28490), and floating point math is 79.3% ahead (201773 vs 112550). Integer math is 81.4% ahead (164839 vs 90882), and extended instructions are 71.3% ahead (51290 vs 29943). These results confirm that the 290HX Plus is not just faster in synthetic multi-core tests but also in practical compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, with the codename Arrow Lake-HX Refresh. It is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC and uses a socket of Intel BGA 2114. The 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with the codename Panther Lake, and uses the Panther Lake architecture. It is also on a 3 nm process, but it is manufactured by Intel's own foundry, not TSMC. The socket is Intel BGA 2540.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor uses hyper-threading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The 290HX Plus has a larger L3 cache at 36 MB shared, versus 18 MB shared on the 388H. Both have the same L1 cache of 192 KB per core and L2 cache of 3 MB per core.

Memory support also differs. The 290HX Plus supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The 388H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The 388H's memory bandwidth advantage is notable, yet it does not translate into benchmark wins. The 290HX Plus supports ECC memory, while the 388H does not.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The 290HX Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the 388H offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. This gives the 290HX Plus far more room for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 290HX Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs, while the 388H uses Arc B390. The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, the 388H does not.

The release dates differ, with the 388H appearing earlier on 2026-01-04 and the 290HX Plus on 2026-03-16. Both parts are listed as Active in production status. The 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55 W versus 25 W for the 388H, which explains its higher performance and also its higher power requirements. The 290HX Plus lists 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 388H does not report transistor count or die size in the database.

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 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Neither processor supports hyper-threading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 290HX Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz. The base clocks are 2.70 GHz and 2.10 GHz respectively.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The 290HX Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The 388H does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The 388H has an average score of 44466, placing it at the 88th percentile.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The 388H does not, meaning the 388H cannot be overclocked in the same manner.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55 W. The 388H has a TDP of 25 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The multi-core gap is the defining story. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 5981 for the 290HX Plus versus 2955 for the 388H, a 102.4% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core is 21198 versus 13101, a 61.8% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core is 39684 versus 18911, a 109.8% lead. These results confirm that the 290HX Plus is roughly twice as fast in heavily threaded workloads.

Single-core results are closer but still favor the 290HX Plus. Cinebench R15 single-core is 340 versus 309.5, a 9.9% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core is 2992 versus 1849, a 61.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core is 2356 versus 2200.5, a 7.1% lead. Passmark single-thread shows 4951 versus 4280, a 15.7% lead. The R20 single-core result is an outlier in the single-core category, showing a much larger gap than the other tests.

Passmark tests reinforce the pattern. Data compression scores 658724 versus 361763, an 82.1% lead. Data encryption scores 50008 versus 28490, a 75.5% lead. Extended instructions score 51290 versus 29943, a 71.3% lead. Floating point math scores 201773 versus 112550, a 79.3% lead. Integer math scores 164839 versus 90882, an 81.4% lead. Multithread scores 59439 versus 36811, a 61.5% lead. Random string sorting scores 80327 versus 44010, an 82.5% lead. Find prime numbers scores 519 versus 358, a 45% lead. Physics shows the narrowest gap at 3387 versus 3226, a 5% lead.

The nearest rivals for each part put these numbers in context. The 290HX Plus sits near the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which has an average score of 79371 and a delta of 0.3%, and the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79097 with a delta of 0.6%. It also compares closely with the AMD EPYC 7413 at 80041 with a delta of -0.6% and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80671 with a delta of -1.4%. The 388H, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 with a delta of -0.2%, the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 with a delta of 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 44309 with a delta of 0.4%, and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240 with a delta of 0.5%. These rival comparisons show that the 290HX Plus competes with desktop-class processors, while the 388H competes with mainstream mobile and desktop parts.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most direct specification split: 24 cores and 24 threads for the 290HX Plus versus 16 cores and 16 threads for the 388H. Clock speeds also differ, with the 290HX Plus running at 2.70 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost, while the 388H runs at 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. TDP is 55 W for the 290HX Plus and 25 W for the 388H.

The 290HX Plus uses socket Intel BGA 2114, while the 388H uses Intel BGA 2540. The 290HX Plus is from the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, while the 388H uses the Panther Lake codename and architecture. Both are on a 3 nm process, but the 290HX Plus is manufactured by TSMC, while the 388H is manufactured by Intel. The 290HX Plus has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the 388H has no reported transistor count or die size.

L3 cache differs at 36 MB for the 290HX Plus versus 18 MB for the 388H. Memory support is DDR5 for the 290HX Plus and LPDDR5X for the 388H. Memory bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the 290HX Plus and 153.6 GB/s for the 388H. ECC memory is supported on the 290HX Plus but not on the 388H. PCIe lanes are 20 for the 290HX Plus and 4 for the 388H, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the 290HX Plus and Arc B390 for the 388H. The 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 388H does not. The 388H was released on 2026-01-04, and the 290HX Plus on 2026-03-16.