Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Intel Core 7 250H records 35728. That places the Core 9 roughly 85% higher in aggregate performance.

Q: How do these two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 versus 16561 for the Core 7 250H, a 57.7% lead for the Core 9. This is the largest multi-core gap between the two in the Cinebench suite.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread PassMark performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 in PassMark single-thread, while the Core 7 250H scores 4148. That is a 9.3% advantage for the Core 9, the smallest margin in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile, while the Core 7 250H sits at the 85th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 9 273PQE also lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 7 250H has no recorded bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor has ECC memory support?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Core 7 250H does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, part of the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename under the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. Both are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel, but the design goals diverge sharply.

Core counts differ. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. That means the Core 9 has fewer physical cores but more threads per core, indicating a different core topology. The Core 7 relies on a higher core count with fewer threads per core, while the Core 9 uses fewer cores with simultaneous multithreading across all of them.

Cache layout also differs. Both processors use an 80 KB L1 cache per core and a 2 MB L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is where the split appears: the Core 7 250H has 24 MB shared L3, while the Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB shared L3. That 12 MB advantage in the last-level cache gives the Core 9 more room for working sets in compute-heavy tasks.

Clock speeds are not identical either. The Core 7 250H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE starts higher at 3.40 GHz base and boosts to 5.90 GHz. The Core 9 also carries a much higher TDP: 125 watts versus 45 watts for the Core 7. That TDP difference reflects the desktop-oriented design of the Core 9 versus the mobile-oriented design of the Core 7.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core 7 is a mobile part, evidenced by its Intel BGA 1744 socket and mobile market segment. The Core 9 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, listed in the desktop market segment. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core 7 provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded benchmark in the database shows the Intel Core 9 273PQE ahead of the Intel Core 7 250H. The Core 7 250H wins zero head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 recorded tests.

The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 versus 1931 for the Core 7 250H, a 65.1% lead. That is a massive gap for a single-threaded workload and points to a substantially higher boost clock combined with architectural efficiency. The Core 9's 5.90 GHz boost clock versus the Core 7's 5.40 GHz contributes to this, but the size of the lead suggests more than clock speed alone.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 57.7% advantage for the Core 9 (39190 versus 16561). The Core 9 also leads Cinebench R20 multi-core by 41.1% (16459 versus 9697) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 20.3% (3950 versus 3147). The multi-core lead shrinks as the workload becomes shorter, which fits the Core 9's higher sustained power envelope.

In PassMark tests, the Core 9 leads data compression by 48.2% (585752 versus 303269), floating point math by 48.2% (125546 versus 65094), and integer math by 39.8% (164629 versus 99100). Extended instructions show a 55.3% lead (38743 versus 17318), and data encryption shows a 38.6% lead (29636 versus 18206).

The closest result is PassMark single-thread, where the Core 9 scores 4573 versus 4148, a 9.3% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the Core 7 250H stays within single-digit percentage territory. PassMark physics shows a 33.8% lead for the Core 9 (2754 versus 1824), and random string sorting shows a 35.8% lead (53167 versus 34136). Prime number finding shows a 46.5% lead (198 versus 106).

The pattern is consistent: the Core 9 273PQE wins every category, with the largest margins in single-core Cinebench and extended instruction workloads, and the smallest margin in PassMark single-thread.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across most core specifications. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads; the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clock differs: 2.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. Boost clock differs: 5.40 GHz versus 5.90 GHz. TDP differs substantially: 45 watts versus 125 watts.

Socket and market segment differ. The Core 7 250H uses Intel BGA 1744 and is a mobile part. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a desktop part. The Core 7 belongs to the Raptor Lake Refresh generation with the Raptor Lake-H codename; the Core 9 belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation with the Bartlett Lake codename.

Cache differs in L3 capacity: 24 MB shared on the Core 7 versus 36 MB shared on the Core 9. L1 and L2 remain the same at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core respectively.

Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 9 at 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Core 9 but absent on the Core 7. PCIe configuration differs: Gen 5 with 8 lanes on the Core 7 versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 9.

Integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 versus UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9. The Core 7 lists a launch MSRP of $502; the Core 9 lists a launch MSRP of $589. Both processors are active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates differ: the Core 7 launched in December 2024, while the Core 9 launched in March 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every recorded benchmark category, so the use-case split is defined by degree rather than direction. The Core 9 dominates heavily in multi-threaded and single-threaded compute. Its largest wins come in Cinebench R23 single-core (65.1% ahead), Cinebench R23 multi-core (57.7% ahead), and PassMark extended instructions (55.3% ahead). These results make it the stronger choice for rendering, scientific computation, and instruction-heavy workloads.

The Core 9 also leads in data compression by 48.2%, floating point math by 48.2%, and integer math by 39.8%. For anyone running batch compression, numerical simulation, or encryption workloads, the Core 9's margins are decisive. Its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the Core 7's 85th percentile, reinforces this.

The Intel Core 7 250H does not win a single category, but its closest result, PassMark single-thread at 9.3% behind, shows it can stay competitive in lightly threaded tasks. The Core 7 also has a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus 125 watts, which matters for systems where power delivery and cooling are constrained. Its mobile socket and mobile market segment make it the practical option for laptop or compact mobile designs. The Core 7's integrated Iris Xe Graphics 96EU provides a different iGPU solution than the Core 9's UHD Graphics 770, which may factor into platform decisions.

The Core 7's 14-core, 20-thread configuration is not enough to overcome the Core 9's higher clocks, larger L3 cache, and 24-thread count in any benchmark. The Core 7 does offer a lower launch MSRP of $502 versus $589, but the performance gap in the recorded data is far larger than the price gap would suggest.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core 9 273PQE outperforms the Intel Core 7 250H in every recorded test, with margins ranging from 9.3% in PassMark single-thread to 65.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 9's average benchmark score of 66099 is nearly double the Core 7's 35728, and its 93rd percentile ranking places it well above the Core 7's 85th percentile.

The Core 9 273PQE is the correct choice for desktop builds where power and cooling are available. Its 125 watt TDP demands a serious cooling solution, but the benchmark returns justify that requirement. It leads by 57.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 48.2% in data compression, and 39.8% in integer math. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and ECC memory support add platform flexibility for workstation-style usage.

The Core 7 250H suits mobile or power-limited systems. Its 45 watt TDP, mobile BGA 1744 socket, and mobile market segment define its role. It loses every benchmark, but the 9.3% gap in PassMark single-thread shows it can handle single-threaded tasks respectably. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration provides solid multi-threading for a mobile part, even if it cannot match the Core 9's 24 threads.

For anyone choosing between the two, the decision is dictated by platform. A desktop system with adequate cooling and power delivery should use the Core 9 273PQE without hesitation. A mobile system requires the Core 7 250H. The data does not support any other conclusion.