Sunday, February 9th 2025
Intel Core Ultra 275HX Outshines Core i9-14900HX by 33% in Early Passmark Appearance
A recent Cinebench R23 result portrayed the upcoming Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX lagging behind its predecessor by a few points in single-core performance, despite pulling well ahead in multicore performance. Now, the high-end Arrow Lake-HX chip has made its debut on Passmark, and the result appears quite enticing, to say the least. In single-core, the Core Ultra 9 275HX leads the i9 14900HX by around 10% - a fair generational uplift. In overall performance, however, the Core Ultra 9 275HX shines bright, pulling off a 33% lead over its predecessor. Of course, the actual improvements are likely to be lower, considering that the Passmark database contains over 1800 entries for Core i9 14900HX-powered systems with varying thermal capabilities, while only a single one so far for the 275HX.
For a refresher, the Core Ultra 9 275HX debuted at CES 2025, and packs 8 Lion Cove P-cores along with 16 Skymont E-cores. Intel has left Hyper-Threading in the rearview mirror with its Arrow Lake lineup, although the Passmark entry seems to suggest Arrow Lake-HX will do just fine without it. Unsurprisingly, for laptops, the performance of the system will boil down to its thermal capabilities, which basically means that there will be a plethora of systems where the 275HX will be unable to fully spread its wings. Besides that, as with all pre-release performance benchmark leaks, be sure to accept this information with a grain of salt. The Ryzen 7945HX3D is also left behind, albeit by a far smaller margin of just around 7% in overall performance. With the Ryzen 9 9955HX3D just around the corner, however, Intel's high-end laptop reign might be short-lived after all.
Sources:
Passmark, Spotted by r/Intel (Reddit)
For a refresher, the Core Ultra 9 275HX debuted at CES 2025, and packs 8 Lion Cove P-cores along with 16 Skymont E-cores. Intel has left Hyper-Threading in the rearview mirror with its Arrow Lake lineup, although the Passmark entry seems to suggest Arrow Lake-HX will do just fine without it. Unsurprisingly, for laptops, the performance of the system will boil down to its thermal capabilities, which basically means that there will be a plethora of systems where the 275HX will be unable to fully spread its wings. Besides that, as with all pre-release performance benchmark leaks, be sure to accept this information with a grain of salt. The Ryzen 7945HX3D is also left behind, albeit by a far smaller margin of just around 7% in overall performance. With the Ryzen 9 9955HX3D just around the corner, however, Intel's high-end laptop reign might be short-lived after all.
18 Comments on Intel Core Ultra 275HX Outshines Core i9-14900HX by 33% in Early Passmark Appearance
Also, it is Not clear where the 33% came from?
To add, when you look at turbo speeds, the exact opposite of what you assume is happening here.
The reason it doesn't do better vs the 14900HX in single thread is likely due to having ~7% slower max turbo speed. That affects single thread, where the CPUs can maintain that turbo on one core.
So if you normalized in the correct direction, if both were running at the same clock, the 275HX would be ~17% faster in single thread. That is just mental masturbation though, the chips run at the frequencies they run at.
In multi-thread, they can't maintain max turbo and it's anyone's guess where they land without a benchmark. However, based on this benchmark, the 275HX is able to maintain its turbo much better than the older 14900HX. Plus it has an IPC advantage.
This shouldn't be very surprising though. 14900HX is an Intel 7 part and derivative of a design launched 4 years ago. 275HX is TSMC N3B and a new design.
Me: so wtf have you been doing previously?
This feels like progress Intel already had and then threw in the shitter
Both results are Valid and final calculated result depends on what number is selected as a base for 100%, that is 45615 or 61010.
Not a big deal to continue talks... :)
Through the years, I had really wished for reviewers to give this area more focus, and investigate latencies, instead of boring, batch-type loads. ’Cause, that is what makes consumers’ PCs slow or not. ny big stuff, let it run in the bckground, or overnight, if you must.
Similarly, the bursty behaviour on desktops and erratic voltage behaviour is the reason for most of Intels problems right now. We've seen it all, from motherboards coming to you with settings that'll simply fry your hardware or are plain senseless to use; to actual degradation of Intel's CPUs because they are given too much juice - even at stock How many more writings on the wall do you need? Their power management plan has exceeded its usefulness and actively killed their business.
Thermal aging can be a problem, news must have escaped me on how it’s actually been one with recent chips.
The erratic voltage behaviour, did Intel ever get into details on that? I’m still of the conviction that there was an error (an actual error), which did not enable any performance gain whatsoever, that led to cores waking up from C-states with the wrong VID numbers and thus getting fed waaaaayyyyy too high voltages in exactly those circumstances, with every small sting adding up. I don’t think anyone’s ever proven Intel to have intentionally set voltages that have turned out unsustainable. (Though, I’ve already brought up that point in another post of mine, and wasn’t it in reply to one of yours as well, that there is not much in longevity promises from either processor vendor.)
Also, reading over “burst is fine” again, followed by your other post, doesn’t actually seem like you mean it when you say “burst is fine”, you make it sound like “burst is dumb.”
Not even crapping on Intel, that's what any company with a legal team worth their salt does.
So, I’ll take your word, in part, that that’s actually a problem you face, when I can’t fully trace it myself.
More tepid boosting, people have asked about that once in a while, the best suggestion I can give you (besides undervolting) is to look into setting the energy-performance-preference (EPP) or energy-performance-bias (EPB), whichever you have. (I believe one of them is newer than the other.)
On Tumbleweed (openSUSE Linux), when I adjust it to power-save from balanced (looks a lot like the slider Win10 has, on KDE), I can see clockspeeds not topping out anymore, and I suspect this is the mechanism behind it.