Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235H Comparison
Intel Core 9 270H
Core Ultra 5 235H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core 9 270H reaches a boost clock of 5.80 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H tops out at 5.00 GHz.
Q: Do both processors have the same core count?
A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 270H and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H feature 14 cores. However, the Core 9 270H supports 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235H supports 14 threads.
Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?
A: The Intel Core 9 270H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.
Q: How do the two processors compare in integrated graphics?
A: The Intel Core 9 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H integrates Arc Graphics 140T.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 5 235H?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The database does not record a comparable bandwidth figure for the Core 9 270H.
Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core 9 270H records an average benchmark score of 38335, which places it slightly ahead of the Core Ultra 5 235H at 37522.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Core 9 270H is built on Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-H, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm node manufactured by TSMC. This process difference is substantial and explains several of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmark data.
The core layout also differs. Both chips have 14 cores, but the Core 9 270H supports 20 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with more hyper-threaded cores. The Core Ultra 5 235H supports 14 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading across its core set. This is a significant architectural decision: the Arrow Lake design prioritizes efficiency and single-thread performance over additional thread count.
Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The Core 9 270H has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Arrow Lake chip help explain its strong single-thread results, while the Raptor Lake chip compensates with more L3 and more threads.
Memory support differs: the Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses and PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 235H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s; no such figure is listed for the Core 9 270H.
The socket and power envelope also separate the two. The Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744 with a 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Intel BGA 2049 with a 28 W TDP. The lower TDP of the Arrow Lake chip is notable given that it wins the majority of benchmark comparisons in the database.
The Verdict
The benchmark data points to a clear split in workload suitability. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test and most PassMark tests. Its advantage is particularly large in Cinebench R23: it scores 25598 versus 18000 in multi-core, a 29.7% lead, and 3613 versus 2040 in single-core, a 43.5% lead. The database also shows a 24.5% lead in floating point math and a 53.1% lead in prime number finding. For users whose workloads involve rendering, scientific calculation, or any heavy single-threaded task, the Core Ultra 5 235H is the stronger choice.
The Intel Core 9 270H wins only 3 of 17 head-to-head tests, but its wins are not trivial. It beats the Core Ultra 5 235H by 31.5% in integer math, by 10.5% in data compression, and by 1.8% in random string sorting. These results suggest that certain integer-heavy, compression-oriented workloads still favor the Raptor Lake design with its higher thread count and larger L3 cache.
The average benchmark scores reflect a near tie: the Core 9 270H sits at 38335 with an 86th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 235H sits at 37522 with an 85th percentile. The Core 9 270H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at 38312 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 (0.1% delta). The Core Ultra 5 235H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900HK at 37425 (0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i5-13600K at 37685 (0.4% delta). In aggregate, the two chips are effectively peers, but the distribution of wins heavily favors the Arrow Lake part.
The verdict depends on the workload. Data compression and integer math users should consider the Core 9 270H. Everything else, especially rendering and single-threaded applications, points to the Core Ultra 5 235H. The 28 W TDP of the Core Ultra 5 235H also makes it the more efficiency-oriented mobile option, though the database does not record power measurements to quantify that difference.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.
The Core 9 270H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235H has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Both have 14 cores, but the Core 9 270H has 20 threads versus 14 threads on the Core Ultra 5 235H.
Process node: the Core 9 270H uses 10 nm from Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses 3 nm from TSMC. The Core 9 270H is a Raptor Lake-H part; the Core Ultra 5 235H is an Arrow Lake-H part from the Core Ultra Series 2.
Cache: the Core 9 270H has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.
Memory: the Core 9 270H supports DDR4 and DDR5; the Core Ultra 5 235H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core Ultra 5 235H records 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Core 9 270H has no recorded bandwidth figure.
TDP: the Core 9 270H is rated at 45 W, the Core Ultra 5 235H at 28 W.
Socket: the Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744, the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Intel BGA 2049.
Integrated graphics: the Core 9 270H has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, the Core Ultra 5 235H has Arc Graphics 140T.
Release date: the Core 9 270H launched on 2024-12-17, the Core Ultra 5 235H on 2025-01-12. The Core 9 270H has a launch MSRP of $697; the Core Ultra 5 235H has no recorded launch MSRP.
Both chips are mobile parts, active in production, with locked multipliers and no ECC support. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The largest single victory for the Core Ultra 5 235H comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 3613 versus 2040, a 43.5% lead. This is the most decisive result in the entire comparison and reflects the efficiency of the Arrow Lake architecture on the 3 nm TSMC node. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 25598 versus 18000, a 29.7% lead.
The Core Ultra 5 235H also wins all four earlier Cinebench iterations. In R15 multi-core, it scores 2580 versus 2464, a 4.5% lead. In R15 single-core, it scores 364 versus 347, a 4.7% lead. In R20 multi-core, it scores 10751 versus 10268, a 4.5% lead. In R20 single-core, it scores 1517 versus 1449, a 4.5% lead. The R23 results show that the Arrow Lake chip's advantage grows substantially under longer, more demanding workloads.
PassMark results favor the Core Ultra 5 235H in most categories. Floating point math: 93509 versus 70640, a 24.5% lead. Find prime numbers: 239 versus 112, a 53.1% lead. Extended instructions: 23354 versus 20079, a 14% lead. Data encryption: 23121 versus 19369, a 16.2% lead. Single-thread: 4359 versus 3944, a 9.5% lead. Multithread: 30091 versus 28764, a 4.4% lead. Physics: 1985 versus 1966, a 1% lead.
The Intel Core 9 270H counters with three wins. The largest is in integer math: 97654 versus 74247, a 31.5% lead. This is a substantial margin and indicates that the Raptor Lake chip handles integer-heavy calculations more effectively despite losing most other tests. Data compression also favors the Core 9 270H: 333785 versus 301979, a 10.5% lead. Random string sorting is the narrowest win: 36867 versus 36208, a 1.8% lead.
The overall win count is decisive: 14 wins for the Core Ultra 5 235H versus 3 for the Core 9 270H. Yet the average benchmark scores are close, 38335 versus 37522, a difference of about 2.2%. This seeming contradiction is explained by the magnitude of the Core Ultra 5 235H's wins in Cinebench R23 and prime number finding, which are outweighed by the Core 9 270H's strong showing in integer math and data compression. The aggregate score smooths out the extremes, but the per-test data shows that workload type matters enormously. For rendering, floating point, encryption, and single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 5 235H is clearly superior. For integer math and compression, the Core 9 270H retains a meaningful edge.