SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

87 / 100
HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 13% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
GPU Bottleneck
CPU
97%
VS
GPU
76%

Your GPU is limiting system performance. Consider upgrading to a more powerful graphics card to better utilize your CPU.

PROCESSOR

Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus

79,574 Benchmark Score
Top 3% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

1,285 Benchmark Score
Top 24% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others
Budget
0-30
Mid-Range
30-60
High-End
60-85
Enthusiast
85-100
Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles
View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

Bottleneck Detected

GPU Bottleneck - Upgrading the weaker component will improve overall performance.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready
70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High
50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med
30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports
0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a 24-core, 24-thread mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC with a 5.50 GHz boost clock. This CPU lands in the 95th percentile of all tested processors, with an average benchmark score of 79,574. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (0.3% faster), the AMD EPYC 7413 (0.6% slower), the Intel Core i9-14900K (0.6% slower), and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X (1.4% slower). The pairing with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, a Turing-architecture GPU with 1,920 shading units and 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, yields a combined percentile of 51, placing this laptop build squarely in the mid-range of overall system performance. The data shows a stark contrast between a top-tier CPU and a GPU that sits in the 7th percentile of all graphics cards, creating a system that is overwhelmingly compute-bound in most real-world tasks.

CPU Analysis

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is a desktop-class processor packed into a mobile form factor, featuring 24 physical cores and 24 threads. This core count is significant for heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering and video encoding, where the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,684 demonstrates strong parallel processing capability. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache, alongside 3 MB of L2 cache per core, helps feed those cores efficiently, particularly in data-intensive tasks where the PassMark data compression score of 658,724 and integer math score of 164,839 indicate robust throughput. The 2.70 GHz base clock combined with a 5.50 GHz boost clock allows the processor to scale from power-efficient multi-core operations to high-frequency single-threaded bursts, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,356.

The processor’s 3 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, contributes to its efficiency profile within a 55 W TDP. This efficiency is notable for a mobile part with this level of core count. The PassMark multithread score of 59,439 reinforces the CPU’s strength in parallel workloads, while the floating-point math score of 201,773 indicates solid scientific and engineering calculation capabilities. The single-thread score of 4,951 in PassMark places it competitively for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and includes ECC memory support, making it suitable for workstation-class tasks where data integrity is paramount.

In real workloads, the benchmark results suggest a processor that can handle compilation tasks, complex simulations, and multi-stream content creation without significant bottlenecks. The Cinebench R20 multicore score of 21,198 and single-core score of 2,992 show a balanced scaling between core count and per-core performance. The PassMark extended instructions score of 51,290 indicates strong support for modern instruction sets like AVX-512, which benefits certain scientific and encryption workloads. The data encryption score of 50,008 further confirms its capability in security-related tasks. Overall, the CPU benchmark data paints a picture of a processor that is roughly on par with the Intel Core i9-14900KF, which is 0.3% faster on average, and slightly ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900K by 0.6% — a position that puts it among the fastest mobile processors available.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark data reveals a profound imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this build. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus achieves a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,574. In Cinebench R23, it scores 39,684 in multicore and 2,356 in single-core tests, showing strong performance in both heavily threaded and single-threaded scenarios. The PassMark suite further validates this, with a multithread score of 59,439 and a single-thread score of 4,951. The CPU’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-14900KF, has an average score of 79,371, placing this chip just 0.3% ahead — a negligible margin in practical terms. Against the AMD EPYC 7413, the Intel part is 0.6% slower, indicating it holds its own against server-class silicon.

In stark contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile scores a mere 1,285 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, placing it in the 7th percentile of all GPUs. This score is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (0.3% faster), AMD Radeon R9 380 (0.6% slower), NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 (1.4% faster), and NVIDIA NVS 4200M (1.4% faster). These rival GPUs are all from significantly older or lower-tier segments, and the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile’s performance aligns with that of entry-level discrete graphics from over a decade ago. The GPU’s 5.299 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 30 RT cores are technically present, but the benchmark score indicates that real-world rendering performance is minimal. The combined percentile of 51 reflects this massive disparity, suggesting that the system’s overall capability is dragged down by the GPU despite the CPU’s top-tier standing.

The combined picture is one of a CPU that can execute complex computational tasks with high efficiency, but a GPU that severely limits any graphics-related workload. For tasks like video editing with GPU acceleration or gaming, the GPU becomes the primary constraint. The 3DMark score of 1,285 is a clear indicator that the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile cannot handle modern 3D applications at playable frame rates, and its 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth is insufficient for high-resolution textures. The data suggests that this pairing is only sensible for CPU-centric tasks where the GPU is used for basic display output rather than intensive compute.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming: The data does not support this scenario. The GPU’s 7th percentile ranking and 1,285 3DMark score indicate that frame rates in modern titles will be extremely low, likely below 30 FPS at 1080p with ultra settings. The CPU’s 95th percentile performance cannot compensate for the GPU’s limitations, and high-refresh gaming is effectively impossible with this configuration.

Streaming: The CPU’s strong multicore performance, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,684, can handle software encoding for streaming without significant impact on overall system performance. However, the GPU’s lack of modern encoding capabilities — it is based on Turing architecture from 2019 — means hardware encoding quality and speed will be subpar. Streaming at moderate bitrates is possible, but the GPU will limit any game capture quality if the game itself is running on this GPU.

Video editing: The CPU excels in this scenario, with the PassMark multithread score of 59,439 and data compression score of 658,724 indicating fast timeline scrubbing and export times for CPU-based rendering. However, GPU-accelerated effects and rendering will suffer due to the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile’s low compute power. The 6 GB VRAM is also restrictive for large projects. Editors working primarily with CPU-based codecs will see good performance, but GPU-accelerated workflows will be frustratingly slow.

3D rendering: The CPU’s Cinebench R20 multicore score of 21,198 and R15 multicore score of 5,981 demonstrate strong CPU-based rendering performance, suitable for software renderers like Blender’s Cycles CPU mode. However, GPU-accelerated renderers, such as those using CUDA or OptiX, will be severely limited by the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile’s 5.299 TFLOPS of compute power. The 30 RT cores are present but insufficient for real-time ray tracing workloads.

Software development: This is a strong use case. The CPU’s single-thread score of 4,951 in PassMark and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,356 provide responsive compilation and code analysis. The 24 cores handle parallel builds efficiently, with the integer math score of 164,839 speeding up code compilation. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running build processes. The GPU is irrelevant for most development tasks.

Student and office work: The CPU provides excellent responsiveness for everyday tasks like web browsing, document editing, and spreadsheet analysis, with the PassMark single-thread score of 4,951. The 24 cores handle multitasking with ease. However, the GPU’s low performance means that any graphics-intensive presentation or data visualization will be sluggish. For standard office workloads, this system is massively over-provisioned on the CPU side but under-provisioned on the GPU side.

Who Should Build It

This build targets users whose primary workload is CPU-intensive and who need the GPU only for basic display output. Software developers working on large codebases will benefit from the 24-core CPU with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,684, which accelerates compilation times significantly. Data scientists and researchers running numerical simulations will appreciate the floating-point math score of 201,773 and ECC memory support, ensuring accurate calculations in long-running processes. Video editors working primarily with CPU-based codecs, rather than GPU-accelerated effects, will see strong export performance, though they should be aware of the GPU’s limitations.

Small business workstations handling financial modeling, database operations, or virtualization will find the CPU’s 95th percentile ranking and multithread score of 59,439 suitable for heavy multitasking. The PassMark data encryption score of 50,008 also supports secure communication workloads. Students in engineering or computer science fields will benefit from the CPU’s compilation and simulation capabilities, but those in graphics design or 3D modeling programs will be severely hampered by the GPU.

Conversely, gamers at any resolution, including 1080p, will be disappointed. The GPU’s 3DMark score of 1,285 indicates that even esports titles will struggle to maintain playable frame rates. Content creators relying on GPU acceleration for effects, color grading, or rendering will find the system inadequate. The GPU’s 7th percentile ranking makes it suitable only for tasks like spreadsheets, word processing, and basic 2D graphics. The target user is someone who needs a powerful CPU in a mobile form factor and does not require modern GPU performance.

Balance and Bottleneck

The performance data reveals a severe bottleneck in the GPU, which limits the system to a 51st combined percentile despite the CPU’s 95th percentile ranking. In any workload that touches the GPU, the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile becomes the limiting factor. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,285, which is 0.3% faster than the GeForce GT 610 and 0.6% slower than the Radeon R9 380, indicates that graphics performance is at the level of entry-level GPUs from several generations ago. This means that in gaming, the GPU will cap frame rates so low that the CPU’s performance is irrelevant.

Conversely, in pure CPU workloads, the GPU is not a factor. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,684 and single-core score of 2,356 are fully realized, and the CPU operates at its 95th percentile potential. The bottleneck shifts entirely to the CPU in tasks like code compilation, data compression (658,724 PassMark score), and scientific calculations, where the GPU sits idle. The system’s FPS scaling in games would be entirely dictated by the GPU, with the CPU providing no meaningful headroom. The data shows that this build is balanced only in the sense that the CPU and GPU serve completely different purposes — the CPU for compute, the GPU for basic display. For any unified workload, the GPU bottlenecks the system.

FAQ

Q: What is the CPU’s overall performance ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 79,574, placing it 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900KF and 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 7413.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its rivals?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile scores 1,285 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 0.3% faster than the GeForce GT 610 and 1.4% slower than the GeForce GT 520, placing it in the 7th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Is this build suitable for gaming?

A: No, the GPU’s 7th percentile ranking and 1,285 3DMark score mean frame rates will be extremely low in modern titles, and the CPU’s 95th percentile performance cannot compensate for this limitation.

Q: What is the CPU’s memory support?

A: The CPU supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support for data integrity.

Q: What are the CPU’s core and clock specifications?

A: The CPU has 24 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, built on a 3 nm process with a 55 W TDP.

Q: What is the GPU’s memory configuration?

A: The GPU has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Q: How does the CPU compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The CPU scores 2,356 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4,951 in PassMark single-thread, demonstrating strong single-threaded capability for responsive everyday tasks.

Gaming Performance

No measured FPS data exists for this exact CPU+GPU combination, so all frame rate figures are estimates based on the benchmark scores. The GPU’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,285, which places it in the 7th percentile, suggests that gaming performance will be extremely poor. The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile’s 1,920 shading units and 5.299 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are far below what modern games require. At 1080p with ultra settings, estimated frame rates for AAA titles would likely fall below 20 FPS, with esports titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Valorant possibly reaching 30-40 FPS at lower settings. At 1440p or 4K, the GPU would be completely overwhelmed, with frame rates dropping to single digits in most games.

The CPU’s 95th percentile performance, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39,684, would not help in this scenario, as the GPU is the primary bottleneck. The 6 GB VRAM is also a limiting factor, as many modern games require more than 6 GB for high-resolution textures. The estimated frame rates are based on the GPU’s benchmark score relative to other GPUs; given that the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile performs on par with the GeForce GT 610, which is a 2012 entry-level card, gaming performance will be reminiscent of that era. The data suggests that this is not a gaming laptop, and any FPS estimates would be disappointing even for casual gaming.

Build Overview

This build pairs the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, a 24-core mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, a Turing-architecture GPU from the GeForce 30-series. The build class is a laptop, and the combined percentile of 51 places it in the mid-range of overall system performance. The CPU is a top-tier part in the 95th percentile, while the GPU is an entry-level part in the 7th percentile. This creates a system that is classified as a mobile workstation, but with a graphics component that severely limits its versatility. The CPU’s 55 W TDP and the GPU’s 80 W TDP suggest a laptop that prioritizes CPU performance over graphics capability.

The overall tier of this build is defined by the CPU’s exceptional compute performance and the GPU’s minimal graphics capability. The data indicates that this system is best suited for professional workloads like software development, data analysis, and CPU-based rendering, where the GPU is not a factor. The build’s 51st combined percentile reflects the GPU’s drag on the overall score, but for CPU-bound tasks, the system operates at a 95th percentile level. The laptop class means the system is portable, but the performance characteristics suggest it is a workstation rather than a gaming or general-purpose machine.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The CPU uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, which is a mobile-specific socket, meaning the processor is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradeable. The system supports DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and the memory bus is dual-channel. The CPU provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, allowing for fast NVMe storage and potentially external GPU connections, though the laptop form factor limits expansion options. The integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, provides a fallback display output but does not add meaningful graphics performance.

The GPU is an MXM module, which is technically replaceable in some laptops, but the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and 80 W TDP limit the options for upgrades. The GPU’s production status is end-of-life, and its successor is Ampere-MW, which would offer better performance but may not be compatible with the same MXM slot. The CPU’s TDP is 55 W, and there is no suggested PSU figure, indicating that the laptop’s power supply is proprietary. A sensible next upgrade would be to replace the entire laptop, as the BGA socket prevents CPU upgrades and the MXM module options are limited. The platform’s DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 support are current, but the GPU is the primary bottleneck, and no software update can fix that hardware limitation.