Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D2
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus | Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 136 | 141 | -3.5% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,195 | 2,529 | -13.2% |
| Cores | 24 (8P+16E) | 16 | — |
| TDP (base W) | 45 | 200 | — |
- Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is slower than Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 by 3.5% in single-core and slower by 13.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus draws less power (45W vs 200W base TDP).
Verdict: Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus or Ryzen 9 9950X3D2?
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus advantages
- Power efficiency (+78%)
Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 advantages
- Multi-core speed (+13%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
- Choose the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D2: which should you choose?
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 136 single-core and 2195 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 45 W TDP.
Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 — 16-core AMD processor scoring 141 single-core and 2529 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 200 W TDP and 192 MB L3 cache.
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D2: Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 leads in multi-core performance. Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is slower than Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 by 3.5% in single-core and slower by 13.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus draws less power (45W vs 200W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 leads there with a single-core score of 141 versus 136, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is stronger, posting 2,529 multi-core against 2,195 in Cinebench 2024. Its 16 cores give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the more efficient chip at 45 W versus 200 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus better than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2?
Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 takes the overall edge, though Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins in specific areas worth weighing. Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is slower than Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 by 3.5% in single-core and slower by 13.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2?
Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is slower than Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 by 3.5% in single-core and slower by 13.2% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus draws less power (45W vs 200W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build. Choose the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.