OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,630PassMark multi-core score:55982N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2114TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 1 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.1/10

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

40%

8.8

Technical score

25%

7.1

Reviews score

25%

8.0

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 95% of processors
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

1.9

Price

▼Worse than 93%
8.8

Technical score

Technical score
8.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated graphics

★Better than 99%
7.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 61% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 61%
8.0

List score

List score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 79 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,630
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

Technical score
Technical score
8.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

9.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.4

Integrated graphics

8.8
Reviews score
7.1
List score
8.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

1.9

Price

6.2
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2114
This processor uses the FCBGA2114 CPU socket, which is older than that of 67.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Chipset
HM870, WM880
This processor supports HM870, WM880 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
24
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 24 CPU cores, which is more than 96.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
CPU threads
24
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 94.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.7 GHz & 16x 2.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.7 GHz & 16x2.1 GHz which is higher than that of 95.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
55,982
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 55,982 in PassMark, which is higher than 96.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
36 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 92.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
L2 cache
40 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 40 MB which is larger than that of 99% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L1 cache
2,432 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,432 KB which is larger than that of 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 82.2% of processors and equal to 6.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Intel Arc Graphics
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 84.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 76.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
160 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 160 W which is higher than that of 87.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.88x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (55,982 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    55,982 vs 11,469
  • 3.98x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,707 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,707 vs 5,209
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 84.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,731 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,731 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 83.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,821 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,821 vs 1,535
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 6.0% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.1 vs 6.7
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 4.88x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (55,982 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    55,982 vs 11,469
  • 3.98x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,707 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,707 vs 5,209
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 84.9% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,731 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,731 vs 2,558
  • 83.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,821 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,821 vs 1,535
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 22.7% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.7 GHz & 16x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x2.7 GHz & 16x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 4 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    8 vs 4
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 13.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (40 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    40 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 4x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    36 MB vs 9 MB
  • 6.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2,432 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,432 KB vs 384 KB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.6x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 2.18x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 3x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (160 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    160 W vs 64 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 6.52x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,630 vs £250).
    £1,630 vs £250
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 16% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.2 vs 7.2).
    6.2 vs 7.2
  • 6.52x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is more expensive than the average processor (£1,630 vs £250).
    £1,630 vs £250
  • 16% worse value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has worse value for money than the average processor (6.2 vs 7.2).
    6.2 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 2.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (160 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    160 W vs 64 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
18/07/2025
Comparison · 29 games, apps, thermals and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a solid choice, but AMD offers slightly better value, while Intel leads on integrated graphics and battery life.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Brand video

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

  • High-end performance that benchmarks as one of the fastest laptop processors available
  • Improved efficiency at lower load levels, allowing for nearly silent, passive cooling during simple tasks
  • Significant gains in multi-core performance compared to previous generations like the i9-14900HX
  • Supports faster DDR5-6400 memory and features an unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking
  • Better battery life (6-8 hours) compared to some competing high-end AMD chips in similar gaming laptop chassis

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX

  • Marginal to no improvement in single-core performance over the previous generation in some tests
  • Reports of overheating and loud fan noise when under heavy gaming or rendering loads
  • Lower gaming performance compared to AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D, which benefits from 3D V-Cache
  • Lack of hyperthreading, which can negatively impact performance in specific multi-threaded legacy benchmarks
  • High power draw under full load (up to 160W), leading to rapid battery drain during intensive tasks

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is a high-end mobile processor from the Arrow Lake series, featuring a 24-core, 24-thread configuration with 8 performance cores (Lion Cove) reaching up to 5.4 GHz and 16 efficiency cores (Skymont) at up to 4.6 GHz. Built on a 3nm process, it includes 40MB of L2 cache, 36MB of L3 cache, a dedicated 13 TOPS NPU for AI workloads, and supports up to 192GB of DDR5-6400 memory. Its main strengths include exceptional single-threaded gaming performance, high multi-core efficiency at lower power envelopes (15W–75W), and significantly improved thermals compared to previous generations. However, it lacks hyper-threading, can reach a high maximum turbo power of 160W, and is often outperformed in heavy rendering tasks and peak multi-core gaming benchmarks by competitors like the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and other processors

No results found