Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core 9 273PE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, slightly ahead of the Core 7 251E’s 5.60 GHz. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the Core 9 and 2.10 GHz for the Core 7.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The Core 9 273PE sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 251E is at the 50th percentile.

Q: What integrated graphics do they use?

A: The Core 7 251E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 9 273PE includes UHD Graphics 730.

Q: When were they released?

A: The Core 7 251E launched on January 12, 2025, and the Core 9 273PE launched on March 8, 2026.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Bartlett Lake codename, the 10 nm process node, and Intel Socket 1700. The shared foundation extends to cache organization: each core gets 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache on both parts. The memory controller is identical as well, supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC memory. PCIe connectivity matches at Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The differences emerge in core topology. The Core 7 251E packs 24 cores and 32 threads, which suggests a mix of performance and efficiency cores typical of a high-core-count desktop part. The Core 9 273PE, despite carrying the higher model number, uses only 12 cores and 24 threads. That arrangement implies fewer physical cores but more threads per core, likely relying on hyperthreading across all cores rather than a hybrid layout. The measured thread count of 24 for the Core 9 means each of its 12 cores can handle two threads, whereas the Core 7’s 32 threads from 24 cores indicates some cores do not support simultaneous multithreading.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Core 9 273PE starts at 2.30 GHz and reaches 5.70 GHz, a 3.40 GHz boost range. The Core 7 251E starts lower at 2.10 GHz but reaches 5.60 GHz, a 3.50 GHz range. The Core 9 has the higher absolute clocks on both ends, but the Core 7 has a slightly wider frequency window.

The integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 7 versus UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 9. Die size is recorded for the Core 7 at 257 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core 9. Production status is Active for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear split between parallel throughput and single-thread responsiveness. The Core 7 251E doubles the physical core count of the Core 9 273PE (24 versus 12) and adds 8 more threads (32 versus 24). In any workload that scales with core count, the Core 7 should dominate. The Core 9 273PE counters with higher base and boost clocks (2.30 GHz and 5.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz and 5.60 GHz), which gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks.

Benchmark evidence from the Core 9 273PE supports this. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4417 and PassMark single-thread score of 3650 indicate strong per-thread performance. Its multi-core results, however, are constrained by its 12-core layout: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 31288 and PassMark multithread at 36810. The Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so direct comparisons rely on architectural inference rather than measured results.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap in measured standing. The Core 9 273PE holds the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 49845, placing it within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600KF. The Core 7 251E sits at the 50th percentile with no average score recorded. The Core 9 is the only one of the two with verified performance data, and that data shows a well-rounded desktop part.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, compilation, or simulation, the Core 7 251E’s 24 cores make it the logical choice on paper. For users who need maximum single-thread speed and can accept fewer cores, the Core 9 273PE’s higher clocks and proven benchmark results make it the stronger candidate. The Core 9 also carries a higher launch MSRP of $549, compared to $384 for the Core 7.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251E | Intel Core 9 273PE |

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

| Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.60 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| Die size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | $549 |

| Part number | SRQDUQ657 | SA4QD |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 50 | 90 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 (no data) | 49845 |

All other recorded specifications match: 10 nm process, Intel Socket 1700, 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, 36 MB shared L3, DDR4/DDR5 support, dual-channel memory, 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, active production status, and locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors. The Core 7 251E has an empty benchmark array, meaning no scores are recorded for it. The Core 9 273PE, however, has a full suite of 17 recorded scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests. This asymmetry means the head-to-head comparison must rely on the Core 9’s measured data and the Core 7’s architectural specifications.

The Core 9 273PE’s strongest multi-thread results include a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31288, a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13140, and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 3153. Its PassMark multithread score of 36810 and integer math score of 139410 show solid parallel capability for a 12-core part. Data compression reached 405885 in PassMark, while floating point math hit 107884.

Single-thread results for the Core 9 are equally detailed: Cinebench R23 single-core at 4417, R20 at 1855, R15 at 445, and PassMark single-thread at 3650. Extended instruction performance reached 24630, and random string sorting finished at 45098. Data encryption scored 22719, physics reached 3120, and prime number finding scored 203.

The nearest rival data for the Core 9 clarifies its standing. It sits 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and 0.9% above the Intel Core i5-14600KF. It trails the Intel Core i9-13980HX by 1.1% and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 by 1.2%. These margins are narrow, placing the Core 9 in a tight competitive cluster among high-end desktop and mobile processors.

The Core 7 251E’s lack of recorded benchmarks means no exact score comparisons are possible. Its architectural advantage, 24 cores versus 12, implies a substantial lead in any workload that uses all cores. The Core 9’s higher clocks, 5.70 GHz versus 5.60 GHz boost, imply a smaller but real lead in single-thread tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 251E wins in core-count-dependent scenarios. Its 24 cores and 32 threads provide double the physical cores of the Core 9. Multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, software compilation, and scientific computing workloads would all favor the Core 7, assuming software scales with core count. The 36 MB shared L3 cache is identical on both, so cache-sensitive workloads see no difference. The Core 7 also carries the more capable integrated graphics, UHD Graphics 770 versus UHD Graphics 730, which matters for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Core 9 273PE wins in single-thread and latency-sensitive scenarios. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock is the highest recorded between the two, and its base clock of 2.30 GHz is also higher. The measured single-core scores, Cinebench R23 at 4417 and PassMark at 3650, confirm strong per-thread performance. Gaming, legacy software, and interactive workloads that depend on one or two fast threads would benefit from the Core 9. Its 90th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 49845 also indicate it performs well across a broad mix of workloads, with rival deltas within 1.2% either way.

The Core 7’s 50th percentile ranking with no recorded average score leaves its real-world standing unverified in the database. The Core 9, by contrast, is a measured performer with a clear competitive position. The choice between them depends on whether the workload favors raw core count or clock speed. The Core 7 suits parallel throughput, the Core 9 suits responsive single-thread execution.