Intel Core 7 160HL vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core 7 160HL contains no benchmark scores, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has a full suite of measurements. This means the head-to-head comparison is entirely one-sided. The Core 9 273PQE delivers a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 39190, which places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its single-core R23 result of 5532 points is equally strong, indicating a high-frequency design that excels in lightly threaded workloads.

The Core 9 273PQE shows particular strength in integer math, scoring 164629 in PassMark, while floating point math reaches 125546. Data compression tests produce a score of 585752, and encryption throughput measures 29636. The extended instructions benchmark records 38743, while prime number finding scores 198. Random string sorting delivers 53167, and the physics test reaches 2754. The multithread PassMark score is 46107, with a single-thread score of 4573. These figures establish a consistent pattern: the Core 9 273PQE performs at a high level across both integer and floating point workloads.

Because the Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark data, there are no direct comparison points between the two processors. The database shows zero wins for either part in head-to-head testing. The only measurable performance belongs to the Core 9 273PQE, which also carries an average benchmark score of 66099. This places it in the 93rd percentile overall, a strong showing that indicates top-tier positioning among all CPUs tracked in the database.

The Verdict

From the available data, the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the only one of the two with measurable performance. Its 93rd percentile ranking means it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database. The nearest rivals confirm this positioning: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 66159, just 0.1% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D scores 65914, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and AMD EPYC 4465P sit 1.1% and 1.2% above respectively. These small deltas show the Core 9 273PQE competes directly with flagship desktop parts from both Intel and AMD.

The Core 7 160HL lacks any benchmark scores, so the database provides no basis for a performance verdict. Its 50th percentile ranking is the only positional data available, suggesting mid-pack placement, but without measured scores this remains an unverified estimate. The Core 9 273PQE, by contrast, has verified performance data that confirms its high-end status. For any workload where benchmark results matter, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice based on recorded measurements. The Core 7 160HL cannot be recommended on performance grounds because no evidence exists in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different underlying designs. The Intel Core 7 160HL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE uses Bartlett Lake as its codename. Both are manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel, so the lithography is identical. The core counts differ: the Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the Core 9 273PQE achieves higher thread counts with fewer physical cores, indicating a different core topology that favors simultaneous multithreading.

Cache configurations also diverge. Both parts share the same per-core L1 cache at 80 KB and per-core L2 cache at 2 MB. The shared L3 cache, however, is larger on the Core 9 273PQE at 36 MB versus 24 MB on the Core 7 160HL. This 50% difference in shared cache can materially affect workloads that rely on frequently accessed data sets. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 9 273PQE also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 160HL does not.

Memory bandwidth on the Core 9 273PQE is rated at 89.6 GB/s, a figure absent from the Core 7 160HL data. The PCIe implementation differs significantly: the Core 7 160HL supports Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 9 273PQE supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes. This doubles both the lane count and the bus generation, giving the Core 9 273PQE substantially more expansion and data transfer capability for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. Clock speeds show a clear gap: the Core 7 160HL has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE runs 0.90 GHz higher at base and 0.70 GHz higher at boost. Thermal design power also differs substantially: the Core 7 160HL is rated at 45 W, while the Core 9 273PQE is rated at 125 W. This reflects the higher clock speeds and larger cache of the Core 9 273PQE.

Core and thread counts differ as noted: 14 cores and 20 threads for the Core 7 160HL versus 12 cores and 24 threads for the Core 9 273PQE. The release dates are distinct, with the Core 7 160HL launching on 2024-04-07 and the Core 9 273PQE launching on 2026-03-08. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded launch price. Both processors share the same Intel Socket 1700, support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and use dual-channel memory buses. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, meaning overclocking is not officially supported for either part. The Core 9 273PQE carries part number SA4Q9, while the Core 7 160HL has an unknown part number. Both are desktop market segments and currently active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, which is 0.70 GHz higher than the 5.20 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core 7 160HL.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9 273PQE delivers more threads despite having fewer physical cores.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has 24 MB. Both processors have the same 80 KB per-core L1 and 2 MB per-core L2 cache.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160HL does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What PCIe capabilities does each processor offer?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which doubles both the generation and lane count.

Q: How does the Core 9 273PQE rank against other CPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 0.1% higher score, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 0.3% lower, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 1.1% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 1.2% higher.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every measurable category because it is the only processor with recorded benchmark data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 and single-core score of 5532 demonstrate strength in both parallel and single-threaded workloads. The PassMark multithread score of 46107 and single-thread score of 4573 confirm this dual capability. For data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, physics, and random string sorting, the Core 9 273PQE has verified scores that establish its performance profile.

The Core 7 160HL has no benchmark wins because no benchmark data exists for it in the database. Its specification advantages are limited to core count: 14 cores versus 12 cores, and a lower 45 W TDP versus 125 W. The 45 W rating suggests lower power consumption, but without performance measurements, this cannot be translated into efficiency gains. The Core 7 160HL also has a 24 MB L3 cache versus 36 MB on the Core 9 273PQE, and its integrated Iris Xe Graphics 96EU may offer different graphics capabilities than the UHD Graphics 770, but no benchmark scores verify either claim.

For users prioritizing measured performance, the Core 9 273PQE is the only defensible choice. Its 93rd percentile ranking and competitive positioning against the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Intel Core Ultra 5 series parts show it belongs in the top tier of desktop processors. The 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 5.90 GHz boost clock and 36 MB L3 cache, deliver strong results across the entire PassMark and Cinebench test suites. The Core 7 160HL, with its 14 cores and 20 threads, may have a theoretical core-count advantage, but the absence of benchmark data leaves its actual performance unquantified. The database records no wins for the Core 7 160HL, so any use-case recommendation must favor the Core 9 273PQE based on the evidence available.