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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core 9 273PQE shows a substantial performance advantage across every measured workload, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries in the database. The comparison therefore relies entirely on the Core 9 273PQE's results against its nearest rivals and its percentile placement among all CPUs.

In Cinebench R23, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 in multi-core and 5,532 in single-core. The single-core result places it in strong standing for lightly threaded tasks, while the multi-core figure indicates heavy parallel workloads are handled with considerable headroom. Cinebench R20 shows 16,459 multi-core and 2,323 single-core, and the older R15 test records 3,950 multi-core and 557 single-core. These three generations of Cinebench all point to the same pattern: the Core 9 273PQE delivers consistent scaling from single-thread to multi-thread performance.

PassMark results reinforce this picture. The multithread score is 46,107, with integer math at 164,629 and floating point math at 125,546. Data compression reaches 585,752, while data encryption sits at 29,636. Extended instructions score 38,743, random string sorting hits 53,167, and prime number finding records 198. The single-thread PassMark score is 4,573, which is notably lower than the Cinebench single-core scores might suggest. This discrepancy highlights that different suites weight instruction-level efficiency differently, and the Core 9 273PQE excels in some but not all single-threaded metrics.

Physics simulation in PassMark scores 2,754. This is a specialized workload that stresses rigid body dynamics, and the result indicates the processor handles physics calculations competently without being its strongest area.

Since the Core 7 251E has no benchmark scores in the database, the head-to-head comparison cannot show exact deltas between the two processors. The data does show that the Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66,099. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66,159 average score, a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914, a delta of +0.3%. The Core 9 273PQE also compares closely to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66,855 (-1.1%) and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66,925 (-1.2%). These margins are all within roughly one percent, meaning the Core 9 273PQE trades blows with very high-end processors from both Intel and AMD.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the Intel Core 9 273PQE?

A: The average benchmark score is 66,099, which places it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core 9 273PQE compare to the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 0.3% higher than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, with an average score of 66,099 versus 65,914.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the Core 7 251E, so all performance analysis is based on the Core 9 273PQE's measurements.

Q: What is the best single-threaded result for the Intel Core 9 273PQE?

A: The highest single-thread score is 5,532 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The PassMark single-thread score is 4,573.

Q: What socket do both processors use?

A: Both the Intel Core 7 251E and the Intel Core 9 273PQE use Intel Socket 1700.

Q: Do both processors have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both support dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, using Intel's 10 nm process node manufactured at Intel's foundry. The Core 7 251E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has no die size recorded in the database. The process node is identical, so any performance difference stems from core configuration, clock behavior, and power delivery rather than lithographic improvements.

The cache hierarchy is shared in structure but differs in capacity. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The total L3 is the same, but the number of cores consuming that shared pool differs dramatically. The Core 7 251E uses 24 cores, while the Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores. This means each core on the Core 9 273PQE has access to a larger effective share of the L3 cache, which can reduce latency in cache-sensitive workloads. The Core 7 251E, with more cores competing for the same 36 MB, may see more cache contention under heavy multi-threaded loads.

Thread counts follow the core counts. The Core 7 251E supports 32 threads from 24 cores, while the Core 9 273PQE supports 24 threads from 12 cores. The thread-to-core ratio is 1.33 for the Core 7 251E and 2.0 for the Core 9 273PQE. The Core 9 273PQE effectively doubles its core count through simultaneous multithreading, whereas the Core 7 251E provides only partial SMT coverage. This is a meaningful architectural difference: the Core 9 273PQE can extract more instruction-level parallelism from each physical core, while the Core 7 251E relies on raw core count.

Both processors integrate UHD Graphics 770, so the integrated graphics solution is identical. Both also support PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and both use the same dual-channel memory controllers with identical bandwidth. The memory support is also the same: DDR4 and DDR5, with ECC capability on both.

The release dates differ significantly. The Core 7 251E launched on January 12, 2025, while the Core 9 273PQE launched on March 8, 2026. This places the Core 9 273PQE as a later entry in the Bartlett Lake lineup, roughly 14 months after the Core 7 251E.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 7 251E offers 12 more physical cores but only 8 more threads.

Clock speeds favor the Core 9 273PQE. The base clock is 3.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz for the Core 7 251E, a difference of 1.30 GHz. The boost clock is 5.90 GHz versus 5.60 GHz, a smaller but still meaningful gap of 0.30 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE runs significantly faster at idle and light loads, and it also reaches a higher peak frequency.

Power draw differs substantially. The Core 7 251E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 watts. The Core 9 273PQE draws nearly twice the power, which reflects its higher clock speeds and the design tradeoff between power consumption and performance.

Die size is recorded only for the Core 7 251E at 257 mm². The Core 9 273PQE has no die size data in the database.

The launch MSRP differs by $205. The Core 7 251E launched at $384, while the Core 9 273PQE launched at $589.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both use Intel Socket 1700 and are production status Active. The part numbers are SRQDUQ657 for the Core 7 251E and SA4Q9 for the Core 9 273PQE.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every measured performance category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results. Its strengths are clearest in multi-threaded productivity: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 39,190 and PassMark multithread at 46,107 indicate heavy rendering, video encoding, and simulation workloads will run quickly. The high integer math score of 164,629 and floating point math score of 125,546 further support this, as these are common in scientific computing and financial modeling. Data compression at 585,752 is exceptionally strong, making this processor well suited for archiving, database operations, and any workload that moves large amounts of data through compression algorithms.

The single-thread performance is also strong, though the suite-dependent variance matters. Cinebench R23 single-core at 5,532 is a high score, but PassMark single-thread at 4,573 is less impressive relative to the multi-core dominance. For applications that depend heavily on single-threaded responsiveness, such as legacy software, some games, and certain scripting environments, the Core 9 273PQE still performs well but does not dominate to the same degree as it does in parallel workloads.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no benchmark data, so its wins cannot be quantified. The specification sheet does indicate where it might hold an advantage in real-world use. With 24 cores and 32 threads, it offers more raw physical cores than the Core 9 273PQE. In workloads that scale with core count and do not depend heavily on per-core frequency, such as certain server-style parallel tasks, the Core 7 251E could theoretically match or exceed the Core 9 273PQE despite its lower clocks. The 65 watt TDP is also significantly lower, which matters in thermally constrained systems or builds prioritizing lower power draw. The smaller die size of 257 mm², combined with the lower TDP, suggests the Core 7 251E is the more efficient choice per watt, though no efficiency benchmark data exists to confirm this.

The Core 7 251E also has an earlier release date, making it a more mature product in the market. Both processors share the same socket, memory support, PCIe configuration, and integrated graphics, so platform-level differences are minimal.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 9 273PQE for any workload where performance is the priority. It sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 66,099 that places it within one percent of processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Its multi-threaded scores are strong across both Cinebench and PassMark suites, and its single-thread results are competitive even where suite variance appears.

The Intel Core 7 251E is a different kind of product. With 24 cores and 32 threads, it offers more physical cores but at a much lower base clock of 2.10 GHz and a lower boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Its 65 watt TDP makes it a lower-power alternative, and its larger core count could benefit specific parallel workloads that do not rely on clock speed. However, without any benchmark scores in the database, its actual performance cannot be verified, and the specification sheet alone cannot establish a performance win.

For a builder who needs proven multi-threaded throughput and top-tier average scores, the Core 9 273PQE is the processor the data supports. For a builder who prioritizes lower power draw and a higher physical core count, and who is willing to accept the absence of benchmark data, the Core 7 251E presents a spec-level alternative. The Core 9 273PQE is the measured choice; the Core 7 251E is the speculative one.