Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus compare to the Intel Processor N150 in multi-core performance?

A: The database shows a decisive advantage for the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39,684 versus 2,590.5 for the N150, a 1,431.9% difference. The R15 multi-core test shows a similar gap: 5,981 versus 422.5, a 1,315.6% delta.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus leads in all recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,356 against 935 for the N150, a 152% advantage. The R15 single-core result is 340 versus 153.15, a 122% delta.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus ranks in the 95th percentile against all CPUs in the database. The Intel Processor N150 sits in the 28th percentile. This places the Ultra 9 among top-tier mobile processors, while the N150 sits well below the median.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores differ between these two processors?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79,574. The Intel Processor N150 records an average of 1,025. The nearest rival for the Ultra 9 is the Intel Core i9-14900KF at 79,371 (0.3% lower), while the N150's closest competitor is the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1,024 (0.1% lower).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, as threads equal cores in both cases.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor N150 does not support ECC memory. This is a relevant distinction for error-sensitive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, codenamed Twin Lake, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The database lists no transistor count or die size for the N150.

The cache hierarchies reflect the performance gulf. The Ultra 9 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone is sixfold in favor of the Ultra 9.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Ultra 9 uses dual-channel DDR5 with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 but operates on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe capability also differs: the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the N150 offers Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ in class. The Ultra 9 pairs with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The N150 uses UHD Graphics 730. Both target mobile segments, but the graphical capability gap mirrors the compute gap.

The Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier; the N150 does not. The Ultra 9 uses socket BGA 2114, while the N150 uses BGA 1264. The Ultra 9's release date in the database is March 2026, while the N150's is November 2024. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

All four recorded head-to-head benchmarks favor the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Ultra 9 scores 39,684 against the N150's 2,590.5, a 1,431.9% delta. This test stresses sustained multi-threaded rendering, and the 24-core part overwhelms the 4-core N150.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 5,981 versus 422.5, a 1,315.6% difference. The absolute scores are lower in R15 due to the older benchmark version, but the relative gap remains consistent. This indicates the multi-core advantage is structural, not benchmark-specific.

Single-core results are less extreme but still one-sided. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 scores 2,356 versus 935 for the N150, a 152% delta. The R15 single-core test records 340 versus 153.15, a 122% advantage. The Ultra 9's boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus the N150's 3.60 GHz explains part of this gap, along with the architectural differences in IPC.

The data shows no benchmark where the N150 wins. The wins tally is 4 for the Ultra 9 and 0 for the N150. The single-core margins, while smaller than multi-core, still represent a substantial performance tier separation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus | Intel Processor N150 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 4 |

| Threads | 24 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh | Twin Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB per core | 2 MB shared |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 9 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | March 2026 | November 2024 |

The TDP difference is notable: 55 W versus 6 W. This reflects the intended usage classes. The Ultra 9 targets high-performance mobile workstations, while the N150 is designed for low-power, fanless systems.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in every measured category. Multi-core workloads show the largest advantage, with the R23 and R15 deltas exceeding 1,300%. This covers rendering, compilation, video encoding, and any parallel workload that can utilize 24 threads. The single-core wins, while smaller, still place the Ultra 9 clearly ahead for responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

The Intel Processor N150 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its strengths lie outside the measured performance metrics. The 6 W TDP makes it suitable for passively cooled designs, and its support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 offers memory flexibility. The single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth cap its memory throughput, but for basic tasks this is sufficient.

The percentile data reinforces the separation. The Ultra 9 sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, placing it near the top of the database. Its nearest rivals are desktop-class parts: the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% higher), the AMD EPYC 7413 (0.6% lower), the Intel Core i9-14900K (0.6% lower), and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X (1.4% lower). The N150 sits at the 28th percentile, with rivals from a much older generation: the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, Intel Core i3-4340, AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, and Intel Core i7-5650U, all within 0.2% of its average score.

For workloads that depend on the PassMark suite, the Ultra 9 shows strong data across the board. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 59,439, single-thread is 4,951, integer math is 164,839, and floating-point math is 201,773. The N150 has no recorded PassMark scores in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for those tests. The Cinebench results, however, provide enough evidence to characterize the performance relationship.

The architecture differences explain the outcome. A 3 nm process with 24 cores, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB of L3 cache will outrun a 10 nm part with 4 cores, a 3.60 GHz boost clock, and 6 MB of cache. The Ultra 9 also benefits from dual-channel memory and Gen 5 PCIe, which matter for memory-bound and I/O-heavy workloads.

The N150's role is better understood as an efficiency-oriented processor. Its 0.10 GHz base clock and 6 W TDP indicate a design focused on minimal power draw rather than peak throughput. The database shows no scenario where it outperforms the Ultra 9, but its low power envelope and memory format flexibility serve a different market segment.