Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a comprehensive sweep by the Intel Core 9 273PQE across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 9 270H does not win a single test in this matchup. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 273PQE scores 5532 against the 270H's 2040, a delta of -63.1% from the 270H's perspective. That is a massive single-threaded gap, one that makes the 270H's 5.80 GHz boost clock look far less effective than the 273PQE's 5.90 GHz in practice.

Multi-core rendering follows a similar pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 273PQE delivers 39190 versus 18000, a -54.1% delta. Even the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the 273PQE at 3950 against 2464, a -37.6% gap. The 273PQE also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 16459 against 10268, again a -37.6% delta. These results confirm that the 273PQE's advantage scales across both single-threaded and heavily threaded workloads.

PassMark tests reinforce the same hierarchy. In integer math, the 273PQE scores 164629 versus 97654, a -40.7% delta. Floating-point math shows 125546 against 70640, a -43.7% gap. Extended instructions favor the 273PQE heavily, 38743 versus 20079, a -48.2% delta. Data compression is also one-sided: 585752 versus 333785, a -43% difference. Data encryption shows 29636 versus 19369, a -34.6% gap. Find prime numbers, a test sensitive to both clock speed and core efficiency, gives the 273PQE 198 against 112, a -43.4% margin.

The smallest relative gap in the entire comparison appears in PassMark single-thread performance. The 273PQE scores 4573 versus 3944, a -13.8% delta. Even this "closest" result still represents a clear win for the 273PQE. Physics simulation shows 2754 against 1966, a -28.6% gap, and random string sorting shows 53167 versus 36867, a -30.7% margin. The multithread PassMark score, 46107 versus 28764, lands at a -37.6% delta, matching the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core gaps almost exactly.

Benchmark interpretation: the 273PQE is not merely faster; it is between 13.8% and 63.1% faster across every workload category recorded. The 270H's average benchmark score of 38335 places it at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the 273PQE's 66099 average score places it at the 93rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the 270H include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at a 0.1% higher score and the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at a 0.1% lower score. For the 273PQE, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits 0.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D sits 0.3% lower. The 273PQE's score position aligns with desktop-class competition, while the 270H sits among high-end mobile parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins decisively. It scores 39190 against the 270H's 18000, a -54.1% delta from the 270H's perspective.

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

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the 273PQE scores 4573 against 3944, a -13.8% delta. This is still a clear win for the 273PQE.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark data compression?

A: The 273PQE scores 585752, while the 270H scores 333785. The delta is -43%, showing a substantial advantage for the 273PQE in compression workloads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 9 270H has a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The 273PQE also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each processor?

A: The 270H sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile. The 273PQE's average benchmark score is 66099, compared to 38335 for the 270H.

Q: Which rival parts are closest to each processor in average score?

A: For the 270H, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is 0.1% higher and the Intel Xeon w3-2525 is 0.1% lower. For the 273PQE, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 0.1% higher and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 0.3% lower.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages despite sharing the Intel manufacturer and the same 10 nm process node. The Intel Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses Bartlett Lake architecture, with the codename Bartlett Lake and generation Core 9 (Bartlett Lake). This architectural split explains much of the performance divergence.

Core configuration differs sharply. The 270H packs 14 cores and 20 threads, while the 273PQE uses 12 cores and 24 threads. The 273PQE achieves more threads with fewer cores, indicating a different hybrid topology or simultaneous multithreading implementation. The 270H's 14 cores with 20 threads suggests a mix of performance and efficiency cores, typical of Raptor Lake-H mobile parts. The 273PQE's 12 cores with 24 threads points to a design where each core supports two threads, giving a 1:2 ratio across all cores.

Cache hierarchy also diverges. Both share the same per-core L1 cache at 80 KB and per-core L2 cache at 2 MB. The shared L3 cache, however, is significantly larger on the 273PQE: 36 MB shared versus 24 MB shared on the 270H. That 12 MB difference in shared cache likely contributes to the 273PQE's lead in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

The memory subsystem differs in one recorded specification. The 273PQE lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 270H has no recorded bandwidth figure. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. ECC memory support is another split: the 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the 270H does not. This makes the 273PQE suitable for error-sensitive workstation tasks.

PCIe connectivity is not equal. The 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the 270H provides Gen 5 with only 8 lanes from the CPU. The 273PQE doubles the CPU-attached PCIe bandwidth, which matters for high-throughput GPUs or storage devices.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, a more capable mobile iGPU. The 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, which is a more basic desktop iGPU. For users relying on the integrated GPU, the 270H holds an advantage, though the benchmark data does not include iGPU tests.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergence across multiple fields. The 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks differ: 3.40 GHz for the 273PQE versus 2.70 GHz for the 270H. Boost clocks also differ, with 5.90 GHz against 5.80 GHz.

Thermal design power reveals the biggest practical difference. The 273PQE is rated at 125 W TDP, while the 270H is rated at 45 W TDP. This is a 2.8x difference in thermal envelope, which explains why the 273PQE can sustain higher clocks and deliver higher scores. The 270H is built for mobile chassis with limited cooling, while the 273PQE targets desktop systems with robust cooling solutions.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The 270H uses Intel BGA 1744, a soldered mobile socket. The 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Cache sizes differ in L3 only: 36 MB shared on the 273PQE versus 24 MB shared on the 270H. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core respectively.

Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the 273PQE at 89.6 GB/s. The 270H has no recorded bandwidth value. ECC memory support is present on the 273PQE but absent on the 270H.

PCIe lanes from the CPU: 16 on the 273PQE, 8 on the 270H, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ as noted: Iris Xe 96EU on the 270H, UHD 770 on the 273PQE.

Market segment and release dates differ. The 270H is a mobile part released on 2024-12-17, while the 273PQE is a desktop part released on 2026-03-08. The 273PQE also has a launch MSRP of $589, while the 270H has a launch MSRP of $697. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers. Part numbers are SRQ6V for the 270H and SA4Q9 for the 273PQE.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the superior processor in every measured workload. The 270H wins zero of 17 head-to-head comparisons, and the 273PQE's lead ranges from 13.8% in single-threaded PassMark to 63.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The average benchmark scores confirm this: 66099 for the 273PQE versus 38335 for the 270H, a 72.4% higher average score.

The 273PQE's advantages in core count, thread count, clock speeds, cache size, PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth, and ECC support all point in the same direction. Its 125 W TDP enables sustained high performance, while the 270H's 45 W TDP enforces mobile-class power limits. For any workload that benefits from multi-threading, single-thread speed, or large shared caches, the 273PQE is the stronger choice.

The 270H is not without purpose. Its 14 cores and Iris Xe 96EU graphics make it a capable mobile processor for laptops needing strong CPU performance without a discrete GPU. Its 45 W TDP suits thin-and-light designs. But against the 273PQE, the data shows no competitive overlap. The 270H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H and Intel Core i5-13600HX, both mobile parts, while the 273PQE competes with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The verdict from the recorded data: choose the 273PQE for any desktop build where performance is the priority. Choose the 270H only if the mobile form factor is a hard requirement and the 45 W power envelope is non-negotiable.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every benchmark category recorded. There are no exceptions in the data. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants, plus all eight PassMark subtests: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating-point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread.

The 270H does not have a single recorded win. Even the closest result, PassMark single-thread at 4573 versus 3944, goes to the 273PQE. The 270H's strongest relative showing is that 13.8% gap, which is still a decisive loss. The 273PQE's largest edge, 63.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core, suggests the 273PQE's architectural improvements deliver far more per clock than the 270H's Raptor Lake design.

Use-case analysis follows the data. For desktop productivity, rendering, scientific computing, or heavy multitasking, the 273PQE is the pick. Its 36 MB shared L3 cache and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support large datasets and fast peripherals. Its ECC memory support fits workstation reliability requirements.

For mobile use, the 270H remains a valid option, but only when compared to other mobile processors. The 45 W TDP and BGA 1744 socket define its role. Its Iris Xe 96EU graphics provide integrated display output without a discrete GPU, a feature set suited to laptops. The 273PQE's UHD 770 is less capable for graphics, but that matters little in a desktop with a discrete GPU.

The split is not about workload type; it is about platform. The 273PQE wins every performance test, so any performance-driven use case belongs to it. The 270H's only advantage is its mobile-ready power envelope and integrated graphics, which are not represented in the benchmark scores. The data shows no scenario where the 270H outperforms the 273PQE in compute performance.