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

The Intel Core 7 240H and Intel Core 9 273PTE are two very different proposals from Intel, despite sharing a 45 W TDP and the same 10 nm process node. The 240H is a mobile-first Raptor Lake part with a high base clock and a strong single-thread Passmark score, while the 273PTE is a desktop Bartlett Lake chip with more cores, a larger L3 cache, and a decisive lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Benchmark data shows the 273PTE wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the 240H counters with 6 wins, including a massive 40.4% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core that flips the script entirely. The choice between them hinges on whether the workload favors the 273PTE’s extra cores and cache or the 240H’s higher base frequency and specialized instruction handling.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PTE is the clear multi-core and compute-heavy champion. Its most dominant result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20,445 against the 240H’s 15,764 — a 22.9% advantage. This is mirrored in Cinebench R15 multi-core, though the 240H actually wins there by 14.6% (2360 vs 2060), showing that the 273PTE’s advantage is not universal across all multi-threaded loads. The 273PTE also takes Cinebench R20 multi-core by a razor-thin 0.3% (8586 vs 8562) and leads in Passmark integer math (82,411 vs 80,396, a 2.4% edge) and floating-point math (60,673 vs 58,905, a 2.9% edge). Its 28.2% win in find prime numbers (142 vs 102) and 10.1% lead in physics (1917 vs 1723) further cement its role for number-crunching and simulation tasks.

The 240H, however, wins where the workload demands raw single-thread responsiveness or specific data operations. Its biggest victory is in Passmark single-thread, scoring 3,782 against the 273PTE’s 3,433 — a 10.2% lead. It also wins decisively in data compression (271,774 vs 258,704, a 5.1% edge) and data encryption (15,155 vs 14,253, a 6.3% lead). Extended instructions favor the 240H by 5.9% (16,897 vs 15,952). Notably, the 240H wins Cinebench R15 multi-core despite the 273PTE’s core advantage, suggesting its higher base clock (2.50 GHz vs 1.40 GHz) helps in shorter, burst-oriented workloads. For everyday app launches, encryption, and compression, the 240H is the better pick; for sustained rendering and large parallel math, the 273PTE dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The 240H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-H refresh, while the 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake design. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process and use the same per-core cache layout (80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core), but the shared L3 cache differs significantly: the 240H has 24 MB, whereas the 273PTE has 36 MB — a 50% increase that helps explain its multi-core scaling. Core configurations also diverge: the 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, a 20% and 50% increase respectively.

Socket and platform are another major split. The 240H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktops. This reflects their market segments: the 240H is explicitly a mobile part, and the 273PTE is a desktop CPU. The PCIe configuration differs as well — the 240H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, doubling the available bandwidth for expansion. Integrated graphics are also distinct: the 240H packs Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units, whereas the 273PTE has the more modest UHD Graphics 730. The 273PTE supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the 240H, and lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, which the 240H does not specify. Finally, the 273PTE boosts to 5.50 GHz versus the 240H’s 5.20 GHz, but the 240H starts at a much higher 2.50 GHz base clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins decisively with a score of 20,445 versus the 240H’s 15,764, a 22.9% advantage. This is the largest multi-core gap in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 240H have any single-thread advantage?

A: Yes, but only in Passmark single-thread, where it scores 3,782 against the 273PTE’s 3,433 — a 10.2% lead. In Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, the 273PTE is faster by 14.1% and 40.4% respectively.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. That gives the 273PTE a 20% core advantage and a 50% thread advantage.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 273PTE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 24 MB on the 240H. Both use 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each?

A: The 240H uses Intel BGA 1744 (mobile), while the 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700 (desktop). They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the 273PTE supports ECC memory. The 240H does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 240H | Intel Core 9 273PTE |

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Bartlett Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Bartlett Lake |

| Generation | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $502 | $549 |

| Part Number | SRQ6TQ5ML | SA4QJ |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark swing belongs to the 273PTE in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2,886 against the 240H’s 1,719 — a 40.4% blowout. This is the clearest indicator of the 273PTE’s superior per-core performance in sustained single-thread loads, despite the 240H’s higher base clock. The 273PTE also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 22.9% (20,445 vs 15,764), reinforcing its place as a rendering and compilation workhorse.

The 240H’s biggest counter-strike is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it wins by 14.6% (2,360 vs 2,060). This is a surprising result given the 273PTE’s core count, but it suggests the 240H’s 2.50 GHz base clock provides a burst advantage that the 273PTE’s lower 1.40 GHz base cannot overcome in shorter workloads. The 240H also wins Passmark single-thread by 10.2% (3,782 vs 3,433), a significant margin that highlights its strength in latency-sensitive tasks.

In the Passmark suite, the 273PTE edges ahead in most compute tests but not by large margins. It wins find prime numbers by 28.2% (142 vs 102) and physics by 10.1% (1,917 vs 1,723), but only manages 2.9% in floating-point math and 2.4% in integer math. The 240H, meanwhile, takes data compression by 5.1% (271,774 vs 258,704), data encryption by 6.3% (15,155 vs 14,253), and extended instructions by 5.9% (16,897 vs 15,952). These wins show the 240H is optimized for data movement and specialized instruction sets, even if it falls behind in raw parallel number crunching.

Cinebench R20 results are nearly identical: the 273PTE wins multi-core by just 0.3% (8,586 vs 8,562) and single-core by 0.3% (1,212 vs 1,208). Passmark multithread and random string sorting also go to the 273PTE by margins of 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively. Overall, the 273PTE’s wins tend to be larger in Cinebench (especially R23) and smaller in Passmark, while the 240H’s wins are concentrated in Passmark and the R15 multi-core test. The data portrays the 273PTE as a strong all-rounder with a specific rendering advantage, and the 240H as a specialist in single-thread and data-centric workloads with a surprising burst multi-core capability.