Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of both processors?

A: Both the Intel Core 9 273PE and the Intel Core 9 273PQE feature 12 cores and 24 threads. They also share the same cache layout: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3.

Q: How do the two chips compare in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 points, which is 20.2% higher than the 273PE's 31,288 points. The gap in single-core R23 is nearly identical, with the PQE at 5,532 versus the PE at 4,417, a 20.2% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 9 273PE reaches 5.70 GHz. The PQE also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz compared to 2.30 GHz on the PE.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PE and the Intel Core 9 273PQE support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the integrated graphics on each chip?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE comes with UHD Graphics 770. Both processors have the same PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 CPU lanes.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 15 out of 17 benchmark tests. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins only 2 tests, which are PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Bartlett Lake codename and are built on Intel's 10 nm process node at the Intel foundry. They share the same generation, Core 9 (Bartlett Lake), and use the same socket, Intel Socket 1700. The core topology is identical: 12 physical cores with Hyper-Threading producing 24 threads, along with the same per-core cache sizes and the 36 MB shared L3 cache.

The primary architecture difference lies in clock behavior and power envelope. The Intel Core 9 273PE runs a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, with a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core 9 273PQE starts at a higher 3.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.90 GHz, but requires a 125 watt TDP. Both processors have a locked multiplier, meaning neither supports overclocking.

Memory and I/O architecture are identical. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is the same: Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The only other difference in integrated features is the graphics unit, with the PE carrying UHD Graphics 730 and the PQE carrying UHD Graphics 770.

The production status for both is Active, and both were released on the same date. The part numbers differ, with the PE identified as SA4QD and the PQE as SA4Q9. Neither processor has a transistor count or die size listed in the database, so the physical silicon details are unspecified beyond the shared process node and codename.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins in two specific workloads: PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics. In find prime numbers, the PE scores 203 against the PQE's 198, a 2.5% margin. In the physics test, the PE scores 3,120 versus 2,754 for the PQE, a 13.3% advantage. These wins suggest that in certain integer-heavy or physics simulation tasks, the lower-power PE can outperform the higher-clock PQE despite the PQE's overall dominance.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins everywhere else, and often by wide margins. The largest advantage appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the PQE scores 38,743 against the PE's 24,630, a 36.4% lead. Data compression also shows a major gap: 585,752 for the PQE versus 405,885 for the PE, a 30.7% difference. In data encryption, the PQE is 23.3% ahead with 29,636 versus 22,719.

In rendering workloads, the PQE consistently holds a 20.2% edge across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with the single-core variants showing the same 20.1% to 20.2% gap. PassMark multi-thread also lands at 20.2% in favor of the PQE. For floating-point math, the PQE leads by 14.1%, and for integer math by 15.3%. Random string sorting shows a 15.2% advantage for the PQE.

The use-case split is clear: the PQE is the choice for any workload that scales with clock speed and sustained power, including rendering, compression, encryption, and general multithreaded tasks. The PE, with its lower TDP and modest wins in physics and prime-number calculations, fits scenarios where power efficiency matters more than raw throughput, although the database does not provide power consumption measurements beyond the TDP figures.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following specification fields:

• Base Clock: Intel Core 9 273PE at 2.30 GHz, Intel Core 9 273PQE at 3.40 GHz
• Boost Clock: Intel Core 9 273PE at 5.70 GHz, Intel Core 9 273PQE at 5.90 GHz
• TDP: Intel Core 9 273PE at 65 watts, Intel Core 9 273PQE at 125 watts
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 on the PE, UHD Graphics 770 on the PQE
• Part Number: SA4QD for the PE, SA4Q9 for the PQE
• Launch MSRP: The PE launches at $549, the PQE at $589

All other specifications are identical: 12 cores, 24 threads, 10 nm process, Bartlett Lake codename, Intel Socket 1700, 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, 36 MB L3 shared, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, Desktop market segment, Active production status, and locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which wins 15 of 17 tests. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the PQE reaches 66,099 versus the PE's 49,845. The PQE also sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the PE is in the 90th percentile.

The largest single-test gap is in PassMark extended instructions. The PQE scores 38,743 against the PE's 24,630, a 36.4% difference. This test measures CPU capabilities with specialized instruction sets, and the PQE's higher base and boost clocks clearly translate into a substantial advantage. Data compression follows closely, with the PQE at 585,752 versus the PE at 405,885, a 30.7% lead. Data encryption shows a 23.3% gap, with scores of 29,636 and 22,719 respectively.

The Cinebench suite paints a consistent picture. In R15 multi-core, the PQE scores 3,950 versus 3,153, a 20.2% margin. R15 single-core shows 557 against 445, also 20.1% in favor of the PQE. R20 multi-core gives 16,459 for the PQE and 13,140 for the PE, a 20.2% gap, while R20 single-core shows 2,323 versus 1,855, a 20.1% difference. R23 multi-core delivers 39,190 for the PQE and 31,288 for the PE, and R23 single-core gives 5,532 versus 4,417, both at 20.2% margins.

PassMark multi-thread also lands at 20.2% in favor of the PQE, with scores of 46,107 and 36,810. Single-thread performance shows the same pattern: 4,573 for the PQE versus 3,650 for the PE, a 20.2% gap. The consistency of the 20% delta across nearly all multi-core and single-core tests indicates that the PQE's clock advantage scales uniformly across workloads.

Floating-point math results show a 14.1% PQE lead, with 125,546 versus 107,884. Integer math gives a 15.3% edge, at 164,629 versus 139,410. Random string sorting has the PQE at 53,167 against the PE's 45,098, a 15.2% margin.

The PE's two wins are notable but small in magnitude. In find prime numbers, the PE scores 203 versus the PQE's 198, a 2.5% difference. In physics, the PE scores 3,120 against the PQE's 2,754, a 13.3% lead. These wins do not offset the PQE's dominance in the other 15 tests.

Relative to the broader market, the PQE sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which scores 66,159, and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914. The PE, by contrast, is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 49,796 and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49,394. The PQE also trails the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 4465P by 1.2%, while the PE is 1.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13980HX and 1.2% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370.