Intel Core 7 240H vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across every single test in the comparison set. The Intel Core 7 240H does not win a single head-to-head matchup. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload type, which reveals a clear pattern in where each chip is relatively stronger.

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core testing. The Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 against 1719 for the Core 7 240H, a delta of 68.9% in favor of the Core 9. This is the largest percentage advantage recorded in the entire comparison. The single-core Cinebench R15 result shows a similar story with a 55.3% lead (557 versus 249), and Cinebench R20 single-core lands at a 48% gap (2323 versus 1208). These results indicate that the Core 9 273PQE has a fundamental advantage in lightly threaded performance, likely tied to its higher clock ceilings.

Multi-threaded rendering tests also show a massive separation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE produces 39190 points against 15764 for the Core 7 240H, a 59.8% deficit for the smaller chip. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 48% gap (16459 versus 8562), and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 40.3% gap (3950 versus 2360). The scaling from single-core to multi-core is consistent, and the Core 9's advantage grows rather than shrinks under full load, which points to the combination of more cores and higher sustained throughput.

PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. In integer math, the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 80396, a 51.2% lead. Floating point math shows a 53.1% lead (125546 versus 58905). Extended instructions show a 56.4% lead (38743 versus 16897). Data compression is 53.6% faster for the Core 9 (585752 versus 271774), and data encryption shows a 48.9% gap (29636 versus 15155). Random string sorting closes the gap somewhat, with the Core 9 leading by 45.7% (53167 versus 28866).

The smallest margin in the entire dataset is in PassMark single-thread performance. The Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 versus 3782 for the Core 7 240H, a 17.3% advantage. This is notable because it is far smaller than the Cinebench single-core deltas. The same 17.3% figure appears for both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, which are duplicate records of the same measurement. This suggests that in certain integer-heavy single-thread workloads, the Core 7 240H is relatively more competitive than in the Cinebench rendering workloads, even though it still loses.

PassMark physics shows the closest overall result at 37.4% (2754 versus 1723), while PassMark find prime numbers shows a 48.5% gap (198 versus 102). PassMark multithread shows a 48% gap (46107 versus 23975). Across all 17 recorded tests, the Core 9 273PQE holds an unbroken winning record. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 is 66099, which places it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 240H averages 31483, placing it at the 82nd percentile.

Comparing the Core 7 240H to its nearest rivals provides context for its position. Its average score of 31483 sits directly between the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31473, with a delta of 0% against both. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508 and Intel Core i5-13500 at 31510 are 0.1% ahead. This means the Core 7 240H is performance-equivalent to those four chips within measurement noise. The Core 9 273PQE, by contrast, sits among much faster company. Its 66099 average is 0.1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914, 1.1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855, and 1.2% behind the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports an unambiguous conclusion: the Intel Core 9 273PQE outperforms the Intel Core 7 240H in every measured workload. The Core 9 delivers roughly double the multi-threaded performance in most Cinebench tests, and it maintains a substantial lead in every PassMark category. The smallest advantage, 17.3% in PassMark single-thread, still represents a clear win.

The Core 7 240H has a launch MSRP of $502. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. The price difference is modest relative to the performance delta.

For workloads that are heavily multi-threaded, the Core 9 273PQE is the only sensible pick from this data. Rendering, compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads all show a 40% to 60% advantage. The Core 7 240H should be chosen only in scenarios where its mobile platform characteristics are the primary requirement, since the Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP against the Core 7's 45 W TDP. The benchmark scores do not show any workload where the Core 7 240H is preferable based on performance alone.

The percentile rankings also support this. The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile. Both are above average, but the Core 9 is in a different performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Intel Core 7 240H is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and belongs to the Core 7 generation labeled Raptor Lake Refresh. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 generation labeled Bartlett Lake.

Both are manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core 7 240H uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, which is a mobile package. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop socket. This socket difference is fundamental: the Core 7 is designed for laptops and compact mobile systems, while the Core 9 is a desktop processor.

The core configurations differ. The Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. That means the Core 9 has two additional physical cores and eight additional threads, which directly contributes to its multi-threaded dominance.

Clock speeds also favor the Core 9. The Core 7 240H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core 9 is faster at both the floor and the ceiling, which explains its single-thread advantage.

Cache hierarchies are similar in per-core structure but differ in total capacity. Both chips have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 24 MB on the Core 7 240H and 36 MB on the Core 9 273PQE. The larger L3 pool on the Core 9 provides additional headroom for workloads that reuse data across cores.

Memory support is identical in type: both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The Core 9 273PQE additionally records a memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s, which is not stated for the Core 7 240H in the database. The two differ on ECC memory support: the Core 7 240H does not support ECC, while the Core 9 273PQE does.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 7 240H provides PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Core 9 273PQE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. This doubles the available CPU-attached PCIe bandwidth for expansion devices.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 7's integrated GPU has more execution units, which generally indicates stronger graphical capability, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in this dataset.

The market segments reflect their intended use. The Core 7 240H is listed as a mobile processor, while the Core 9 273PQE is listed as a desktop processor. The TDP figures corroborate this: the Core 7 240H consumes 45 W, while the Core 9 273PQE consumes 125 W. The Core 9 is a much hotter and more power-hungry part, which is expected for a desktop chip with more cores and higher clocks.

Release dates differ substantially. The Core 7 240H was released on 2024-12-17, while the Core 9 273PQE was released on 2026-03-08. Both are listed as active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 9 273PQE leads by 68.9% with a score of 5532 against 1719.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core 7 240H wins?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with zero wins recorded for the Core 7 240H.

Q: Do the two processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Core 7 240H has a 45 W TDP, and the Core 9 273PQE has a 125 W TDP.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Core 7 240H does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every benchmark category recorded, so the question is not which processor wins a given workload, but rather how large the margin is and what that implies for different use cases.

For multi-threaded rendering and content creation, the Core 9 273PQE is overwhelmingly superior. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 59.8% lead, and Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 40.3% lead. The additional two cores and eight threads, combined with the higher boost clock, translate directly into faster render times. This processor is the correct choice for any workload that scales across cores.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded applications, the Core 9 273PQE still wins, but the margin varies. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it leads by 68.9%, which is the largest single-thread gap in the data. In PassMark single-thread, the lead shrinks to 17.3%. Applications that rely on a single thread will still run faster on the Core 9, but the advantage is less dramatic than in fully threaded workloads.

For data compression and encryption, the Core 9 273PQE leads by 53.6% and 48.9% respectively. These workloads benefit from both core count and memory bandwidth. The Core 9's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes give it additional headroom for data-intensive tasks.

For integer and floating point math, the Core 9 273PQE leads by 51.2% and 53.1%. These are broad measures of computational throughput and confirm that the Core 9 is faster across general-purpose compute, not just in rendering-specific workloads.

The Core 7 240H does have relative strengths, even though it loses every test. Its TDP of 45 W is less than half that of the Core 9 273PQE at 125 W. Its mobile socket and mobile market segment mean it can be deployed in laptops and compact systems where the Core 9 cannot physically fit. Its integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units is likely more capable for graphics tasks than the Core 9's UHD Graphics 770, though no graphics benchmarks are present in this dataset to confirm that. Its PCIe Gen 5 implementation, while narrower at 8 lanes versus 16, is still current-generation.

The Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, making it a capable mobile processor. The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile, placing it in the top tier of the entire database. For users who need maximum performance and can accommodate a desktop platform, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice. For users who require a mobile form factor or lower power draw, the Core 7 240H is the only viable option from this pairing, and its performance is competitive with chips like the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX and Intel Core Ultra 5 225H.