• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core Ultra 275HX Outshines Core i9-14900HX by 33% in Early Passmark Appearance

GGforever

Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2024
Messages
153 (1.32/day)
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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,759 (0.48/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Sounds right. Intel's push has gone whole hog into the large laptop market. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate very well into the desktop market.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
187 (0.08/day)
This is due to higher Clock Speed, that is 2.7 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz. If a normalization is applied the performance improvement will be ~8.2%.

Also, it is Not clear where the 33% came from?
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2024
Messages
13 (0.04/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B650E-F
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S Chromax Black
Memory G.Skill Flare X5 Series 64GB (2x32) DDR5-6000 CL30
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX™ 4090 GAMING X TRIO 24GB
Storage 1x Samsung 990 PRO 2TB SSD 2x Samsung 980 PRO 1TB SSD
Display(s) LG C3 77" 4K OLED TV
Case Corsair iCUE 4000X RGB Tempered Glass ATX Mid-Tower
Power Supply Corsair RMx Series RM1000x 1000 Watt 80 Plus Gold ATX Fully Modular
Software Windows 11 Pro 24H2
This is due to higher Clock Speed, that is 2.7 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz. If a normalization is applied the performance improvement will be ~8.2%.

Also, it is Not clear where the 33% came from?
61010 is 133% of 45615... Or 33% more
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,759 (0.48/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
This is due to higher Clock Speed, that is 2.7 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz. If a normalization is applied the performance improvement will be ~8.2%.

Also, it is Not clear where the 33% came from?

Your first statement is only using base clock speeds, which are meaningless during benchmarking.

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.

1739133236947.png
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
1,249 (0.98/day)
he 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.
Way more balanced narrative and bringing more context to readers. Thank you for the effort and well done.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,584 (0.79/day)
So works out to like a 100MHz net gain average clock speed bump between base the base and turbo clock speeds at least for what appears to be the P cores. I'm not sure how it looks with E cores, but hopefully a similar approach and maybe even slightly more aggressively at reducing a touch of turbo clock speeds in favor of base clock and a higher average between the two. At least this score uplift in this test appears more pronounced. Intel really needs to turn things around though overall more aggressively. It looks like they made a small bump to the L1 and L2 cache to.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,786 (1.00/day)
I would think it will be wise to wait for official testing results to confirm the performance of the Core Ultra 2xx mobile chips. Knowing that this is no different from the desktop variant, I do expect it to underwhelm when it comes to gaming performance. So for people who are getting a new laptop for work that benefits from the new chip, then it will make sense to get it. For gamers, I see no point in getting this over say an older Raptor Lake or AMD based laptop if they are cheaper. Battery life may be better with the Core Ultra 2xx, but on gaming laptops, battery life is generally not a big problem.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
23,269 (6.12/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
System Name Tiny the White Yeti
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi
Cooling CPU: Thermalright Peerless Assassin / Case: Phanteks T30-120 x3
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Lian Li A3 mATX White
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Steelseries Aerox 5
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
VR HMD HD 420 - Green Edition ;)
Software W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC
Benchmark Scores Over 9000
Intel: 'we made our CPU less bursty and lowered the peak frequencies so now it performs better'

Me: so wtf have you been doing previously?
This feels like progress Intel already had and then threw in the shitter
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
11,016 (1.75/day)
Location
Austin Texas
System Name stress-less
Processor 9800X3D @ 5.42GHZ
Motherboard MSI PRO B650M-A Wifi
Cooling Thermalright Phantom Spirit EVO
Memory 64GB DDR5 6600 1:2 CL36, FCLK 2200
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 FE
Storage 2TB WD SN850, 4TB WD SN850X
Display(s) Alienware 32" 4k 240hz OLED
Case Jonsbo Z20
Audio Device(s) Yes
Power Supply Corsair SF750
Mouse DeathadderV2 X Hyperspeed
Keyboard 65% HE Keyboard
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores They're pretty good, nothing crazy.
What a pity time for hardware when its news worthy to have a new gen beating in some scenario the old gen.
Especially considering the last generation is actually just a rebrand of the generation before that.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2024
Messages
39 (0.25/day)
Intel: 'we made our CPU less bursty and lowered the peak frequencies so now it performs better'

Me: so wtf have you been doing previously?
This feels like progress Intel already had and then threw in the shitter
Why, do tell me, why have there been, for so long, inept people who are talking down on burst-focused CPUs? You know what I’m doing all day, what my device is tasked with? Bursts•of•work.
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.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,584 (0.79/day)
In general a more narrow frequency gap between base and turbo speeds will feel more responsive and balanced, but offer less peak performance and less idle efficiency as a trade off. It's more consistent however and raises the base performance level a bit in exchange for lower peak performance which is a fair trade off.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
23,269 (6.12/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
System Name Tiny the White Yeti
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi
Cooling CPU: Thermalright Peerless Assassin / Case: Phanteks T30-120 x3
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Lian Li A3 mATX White
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Steelseries Aerox 5
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
VR HMD HD 420 - Green Edition ;)
Software W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC
Benchmark Scores Over 9000
Why, do tell me, why have there been, for so long, inept people who are talking down on burst-focused CPUs? You know what I’m doing all day, what my device is tasked with? Bursts•of•work.
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.
Burst is fine, but bursting to 90+C in laptops all the time is not so fine. Its one of the reasons these devices die so fast, or are such a pain in the ass to use 'on your lap'.

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.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2024
Messages
39 (0.25/day)
Burst is fine, but bursting to 90+C in laptops all the time is not so fine. Its one of the reasons these devices die so fast, or are such a pain in the ass to use 'on your lap'.

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.
Sorry, you must’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere: If your load truly is bursty, heat generation will stop before thermal inertia and dilution (spread-out) has been overcome and it actually gets hot. Especially considering core temperatures don’t matter much, waste power (wattage going towards heating) and surface terperatures do. (Regardless of that, wasn’t it AMD who’ve had some marvelously hard to cool chips?)
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.”
Intel: 'we made our CPU less bursty and lowered the peak frequencies so now it performs better'

Me: so wtf have you been doing previously?
This feels like progress Intel already had and then threw in the shitter
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
2,668 (1.99/day)
Sorry, you must’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere: If your load truly is bursty, heat generation will stop before thermal inertia and dilution (spread-out) has been overcome and it actually gets hot

I don't think you're understanding what a bursty load really is. It's not the burst of pressing a key which lasts microseconds, it's the burst of opening an aplication or a file or whatever that lasts for dozens of seconds, that adds up with use because everything you do throws a new burst and laptops have nowhere near the thermal inertia to manage that so the cpu will get hot, and will stop bursting which will translate in you feeling the computer sluggish.

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),

Oh there was definitely a big error of some kind, but unless you have a friend working at Intel that likes to babble after a couple beers you'll never truly know. It was hard enough for Intel to admit there was a problem, no way they'll go too much into the details which would further tarnish the reputation and opens the door for litigation.

Not even crapping on Intel, that's what any company with a legal team worth their salt does.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
23,269 (6.12/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
System Name Tiny the White Yeti
Processor 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar b650m wifi
Cooling CPU: Thermalright Peerless Assassin / Case: Phanteks T30-120 x3
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance 30CL6000
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Lexar NM790 4TB + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 980 1TB + Crucial BX100 250GB
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Lian Li A3 mATX White
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Steelseries Aerox 5
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
VR HMD HD 420 - Green Edition ;)
Software W11 IoT Enterprise LTSC
Benchmark Scores Over 9000
Sorry, you must’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere: If your load truly is bursty, heat generation will stop before thermal inertia and dilution (spread-out) has been overcome and it actually gets hot. Especially considering core temperatures don’t matter much, waste power (wattage going towards heating) and surface terperatures do. (Regardless of that, wasn’t it AMD who’ve had some marvelously hard to cool chips?)
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.”
You're reading too much into it. Burst is fine. Too much burst while dropping the base clock to the floor makes the CPU behaviour erratic. Its really that simple. You can make fast CPUs without going over the top like this. The few nano seconds saved on the extra Ghz isn't going to make a difference. You're often waiting on storage to catch up anyway in stuff like, for example, loading up an application.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2024
Messages
39 (0.25/day)
I don't think you're understanding what a bursty load really is. It's not the burst of pressing a key which lasts microseconds, it's the burst of opening an aplication or a file or whatever that lasts for dozens of seconds, that adds up with use because everything you do throws a new burst and laptops have nowhere near the thermal inertia to manage that so the cpu will get hot, and will stop bursting which will translate in you feeling the computer sluggish.
My understanding seems fine enough, just, I don’t have any applications causing these kinds of bursts. your loads must be wild. (I’m using weak and, really, uber weak processors—according to mainstream standards—on the day, so it’s not like my systems are superior to the point I’m plain not feeling it.) We may also diverge on what complaint-worthy sluggish is. ;)

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.
 
Top