OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£490PassMark benchmark result:20008N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2833TDP (Thermal design power):30 W

Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.6

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components

90%

7.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 81% of processors
7.6

Technical score

Technical score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

8.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 81% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £490

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 288V

Technical score
Technical score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

8.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated Graphics

7.6
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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
▲ Better than 79% of models
Score components:

60%

7.6

Overall score

40%

7.9

Price

7.7
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2833
CPU socket
FCBGA2833
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2833 CPU socket, which is older than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
N. of physical cores
8
▲ Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
▲ Better than 86% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.3 GHz & 4x 3.3 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.3 GHz & 4x 3.3 GHz
▲ Better than 79% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz which is higher than that of 78.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Semiconductor size
3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
▲ Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
L2 cache
14 MB
▲ Better than 88% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
★ Better than 90% of models
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,533 MHz
Maximum memory speed
8,533 MHz
★ Better than 99% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,533 MHz, which is higher than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8533 MHz, which is higher than that of 99.1% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 140V
▲ Better than 87% of models
This processor uses the Intel Arc Graphics 140V integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 87.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Integrated GPU execution units
8
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 74% of processors and equal to 7.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 600 MHz which is higher than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
JPEG (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
JPEG (HW decode/encode)
▼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor supports JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 80.7% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
30 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
30 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 30 W which is lower than that of 67.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
30 W
Base power (PL1)
30 W
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 30 W which is lower than that of 67.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
37 W
Boost power (PL2)
37 W
▲ Better than 72% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 37 W which is lower than that of 72.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 9 288V vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 71.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,294
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,294 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,294 vs 2,500
  • 97.2% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,901
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,901 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,901 vs 1,471
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Lunar Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 89.2% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    20,008
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (20,008 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    20,008 vs 10,572.5
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 18.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.1 GHz
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2.5 MB/core
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 4 years newer release date
    Release date
    2024
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    September 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 71.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,294
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,294 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,294 vs 2,500
  • 97.2% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,901
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,901 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,901 vs 1,471
  • 89.2% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    20,008
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (20,008 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    20,008 vs 10,572.5
  • 18.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.1 GHz
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 3.3 GHz & 4 x 3.3 GHz
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x3.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x3.3 GHz & 4x3.3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 4 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    8
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 8, E-core 8
    8 vs 4
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Lunar Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Lunar Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 5.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    14 MB
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    14 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 5x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2.5 MB/core
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 75% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    3 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    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
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    ▲ Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 2.91x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    8,533 MHz
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8533 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    8,533 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 2.98x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    136.5 GB/s
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (136.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    136.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Arc Graphics 140V
    ▲ Better than 87% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Graphics 140V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Graphics 140V vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    600 MHz
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 33.3% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    30 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (30 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    30 W vs 45 W
  • 38.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    37 W
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (37 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    37 W vs 60 W
  • 33.3% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    30 W
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (30 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    30 W vs 45 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 60.1% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    133.19
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (133.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    133.19 vs 334.1
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 96% more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is more expensive than the average processor (£490 vs £250).
    £490 vs £250
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    8
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 96% more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is more expensive than the average processor (£490 vs £250).
    £490 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 60.1% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    133.19
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (133.2 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    133.19 vs 334.1
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    8
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techfinitive.com
24/09/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Review
C
cpubenchmark.net
Undated
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V - CPU Benchmarks Tom's Hardware
L
laptopmedia.com
Undated
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V - benchmark tests
T
tomshardware.com
25/09/2024
Summary of the review
We benchmarked Intel's Lunar Lake GPU with Core Ultra 9
L
laptopmedia.com
01/09/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V - Benchmark tests
C
computerbase.de
24/09/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V "Lunar Lake" Review
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
21/10/2025
Summary of the review
MacBook Pro M5 Review: Apple's M5 Features the Fastest P-Core
(Translated)Show original
T
techfinitive.com
24/09/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Review
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
18/10/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Review: ASUS Zenbook S 14
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 9 288V

  • Excellent single-core performance, rivaling more power-hungry chips in snappy day-to-day tasks
  • Strong integrated graphics (Arc 140V) capable of playing modern 1080p games at playable frame rates
  • Impressive energy efficiency and battery life, living up to 'all-day' usage claims in thin-and-light laptops
  • Includes a powerful dedicated NPU (48 TOPS) for local AI workloads
  • Comes with 32GB of fast on-package LPDDR5x RAM by default
  • Maintains good thermal stability and doesn't get excessively hot in most use cases

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 9 288V

  • Mediocre multi-core performance compared to AMD and Qualcomm rivals due to a lower 8-core/8-thread count
  • High price point for laptops equipped with this flagship processor
  • Marginal performance gains over the Core Ultra 7 258V despite being marketed as the flagship
  • Fans can be loud and noticeable when the chip is under heavy load
  • Higher power floor (17W minimum vs 8W for other variants) may drain battery faster during very light tasks

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is a high-end mobile processor from the Lunar Lake series, featuring an 8-core configuration split evenly between 4 Lion Cove performance cores and 4 Skymont efficiency cores with a max turbo clock of 5.1 GHz. Built on a 3nm process, it integrates 32 GB of on-package LPDDR5X-8533 memory and an Intel Arc Graphics 140V iGPU with 8 ray tracing units. Main advantages include exceptional power efficiency with a 30W base TDP, a powerful 48 TOPS NPU for AI acceleration, and strong single-core performance that rivals desktop-class chips in slim laptop form factors. However, it is limited by its non-expandable on-package RAM, a relatively low thread count (8 threads) due to the lack of hyper-threading, and multi-core performance that trails behind competitors with higher core counts.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 9 288V 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 288V and other processors

No results found