AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core 9 273PTE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part also offers a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus 16 MB.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: Results are mixed. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 7 260 scores 2747.5, which is 33.4% ahead of Intel’s 2060. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel reverses the result, scoring 20445 versus AMD’s 17211.5, a 15.8% lead for Intel.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 boosts to 5.10 GHz. However, the AMD part has a much higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 1.40 GHz for Intel.

Q: What is the difference in memory support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 supports DDR5 only. The Intel Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with a peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance in PassMark?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 scores 3736 in PassMark single-thread, which is 8.8% ahead of the Intel Core 9 273PTE’s 3433. In Cinebench R23 single-core, however, Intel leads with 2886 versus 1770.5 for AMD, a 38.7% advantage.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile processor using AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1700. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $549.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm Intel process, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs substantially. AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel provides 12 cores and 24 threads. Per-core cache layouts also diverge. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on Intel may benefit workloads that repeatedly access a shared data set.

Socket and platform compatibility separate the two entirely. AMD uses Socket FP8, which is a mobile platform, while Intel uses Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The AMD processor integrates Radeon 780M graphics, whereas Intel integrates UHD Graphics 730. Both have locked multipliers, so neither supports manual overclocking through a multiplier change.

PCIe support differs in generation and lane count. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe standard on Intel offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the lane count is lower.

Memory compatibility also differs. AMD supports DDR5 exclusively. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving it flexibility for older memory modules. ECC memory is supported on the Intel part but not on the AMD part. Both use a dual-channel memory bus with identical peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Clock strategy is notably different. AMD runs a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz. Intel runs a much lower 1.40 GHz base but boosts to 5.50 GHz. This suggests Intel relies more heavily on turbo behavior, while AMD maintains a higher sustained baseline.

The release dates are separated by over a year. AMD launched on 2025-01-05, and Intel launched on 2026-03-08. Both processors are currently in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show 9 wins for the AMD Ryzen 7 260 and 6 wins for the Intel Core 9 273PTE across 15 tests. The AMD part dominates in several PassMark workloads, while Intel leads in certain Cinebench and physics tests.

The largest AMD advantage appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the Ryzen 7 260 scores 26544 versus Intel’s 15952, a 66.4% lead. This indicates a strong advantage for workloads using advanced instruction sets. PassMark data encryption shows AMD ahead by 42.2%, scoring 20267 against 14253. PassMark random string sorting also favors AMD significantly, with a 46.3% lead, 42383 versus 28973. Data compression shows AMD ahead by 35.9%, with 351517 versus 258704.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD leads by 33.4%, scoring 2747.5 versus 2060. PassMark integer math shows AMD ahead by 17.4%, with 96737 versus 82411. PassMark multithread gives AMD a 16.7% lead, 28078 versus 24054. PassMark single-thread also favors AMD by 8.8%, with 3736 versus 3433.

Intel takes the largest win in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2886 against 1770.5 for AMD, a 38.7% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers gives Intel a 45.8% lead, with 142 versus 77. PassMark physics shows Intel ahead by 36.5%, scoring 1917 versus 1218. Cinebench R23 multi-core favors Intel by 15.8%, with 20445 versus 17211.5. Cinebench R15 single-core gives Intel a narrow 4.7% lead, 290 versus 276.5. PassMark floating point math is close, with Intel ahead by 2%, 60673 versus 59462.

The overall pattern suggests that AMD delivers stronger results in integer-heavy, encryption, compression, and sorting workloads, while Intel excels in single-core Cinebench rendering, prime number calculation, and physics simulation. The two processors trade leads based on workload characteristics rather than one being universally faster.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the better choice for data-intensive tasks. It wins 9 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, with particularly large margins in extended instructions, encryption, random string sorting, and data compression. Its PassMark single-thread score also exceeds Intel’s by 8.8%, which is notable given that Intel has a higher boost clock.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE is preferable for rendering workloads that follow Cinebench R23 patterns, where it leads by 15.8% in multi-core and 38.7% in single-core. It also shows strong results in physics simulation and prime number finding. The Intel part has more cores and threads, plus a larger L3 cache, which may explain its R23 multi-core advantage.

For mobile use, the AMD processor is the only option, as it uses Socket FP8 and targets the mobile segment. The Intel part is a desktop processor on Socket 1700. The AMD part integrates Radeon 780M graphics, while Intel integrates UHD Graphics 730. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The average benchmark scores place the AMD part at 43717 with an 88th percentile ranking, while Intel sits at 31143 with an 82nd percentile. The AMD part’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 and AMD Ryzen 7 170, both within 0.1% of its average score. The Intel part’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, both within 0.2%. These figures confirm that the AMD processor holds a higher overall standing in the database.

Users with heavy encryption, compression, or integer math workloads should favor the AMD Ryzen 7 260 based on its consistent PassMark wins. Users prioritizing Cinebench rendering, physics simulation, or single-core R23 performance should favor the Intel Core 9 273PTE. The choice ultimately depends on the workload mix, with the data showing no single processor winning across all categories.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 260 | Intel Core 9 273PTE |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| ECC Memory | false | true |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | (not recorded) | $549 |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | (not recorded) |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | (not recorded) |