Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core i5-14600KF Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PE and Intel Core i5-14600KF are both desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, yet they represent contrasting design philosophies. The 273PE is a 12-core, 24-thread Bartlett Lake part with a 65 W TDP, while the 14600KF is a 14-core, 20-thread Raptor Lake Refresh chip with a 125 W TDP. Benchmark data shows the 14600KF wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the 273PE counters with decisive victories in specific math and physics workloads. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—49,845 for the 273PE versus 49,394 for the 14600KF—placing both at the 90th percentile among all CPUs. The real story is not overall performance but where each chip applies its resources, and the data reveals a clear split between general-purpose throughput and specialized computation.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i5-14600KF is the better all-around performer for most desktop workloads. It leads in every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, with margins between 3.7% and 3.9% in both single-core and multi-core runs. It also dominates in PassMark’s data compression (485,140 vs 405,885), data encryption (27,608 vs 22,719), and single-thread tests (4,273 vs 3,650). For users running office productivity, content creation, or any software that relies on conventional multi-threaded scaling, the 14600KF is the stronger choice. Its 14 cores and 20 threads outpace the 273PE’s 12 cores and 24 threads in most real-world scenarios, despite the thread count disadvantage.

The Intel Core 9 273PE, however, is not without merit. It wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests, and those wins are not marginal. The 273PE outperforms the 14600KF by 26.1% in find prime numbers, 27.4% in physics, 15.9% in floating-point math, and 10.7% in integer math. These are precisely the workloads that stress raw arithmetic throughput and memory latency tolerance. If the primary application is scientific computing, financial modeling, or any task dominated by dense mathematical operations, the 273PE is the better buy. The 65 W TDP also suggests lower power draw, though the fact pack does not provide wattage figures to confirm operational costs.

Given the 90th percentile ranking for both chips, neither is a weak performer. The decision comes down to workload. The 14600KF is the safer pick for a general-purpose desktop, while the 273PE is a specialist that excels in computation-heavy environments. The 14600KF carries a launch MSRP of $294, and the 273PE carries a launch MSRP of $549, but price should not be the deciding factor here—the performance profile should.

Where Each One Wins

The 14600KF wins in every Cinebench test, which measures real-world rendering and 3D scene creation. Its multi-core R23 score of 32,544 beats the 273PE’s 31,288 by 3.9%. This margin is consistent across R15 (3,280 vs 3,153) and R20 (13,668 vs 13,140), indicating a stable advantage in threaded rendering workloads. The 14600KF also takes PassMark’s multithread test (38,697 vs 36,810) and random string sorting (52,056 vs 45,098), the latter being a 13.4% win that suggests better memory subsystem performance for sorting algorithms. Data compression and encryption also favor the 14600KF, with 16.3% and 17.7% leads respectively.

The 273PE wins are concentrated in arithmetic and physics simulations. The find prime numbers test shows a 26.1% advantage (203 vs 161), which is a significant gap for a workload that is notoriously sensitive to core architecture and cache design. The physics test result of 3,120 vs 2,449 is a 27.4% margin, indicating that the 273PE’s core layout handles rigid-body and particle simulations more efficiently. Floating-point math (107,884 vs 93,048) and integer math (139,410 vs 125,982) round out the 273PE’s wins, with 15.9% and 10.7% margins. These are not niche benchmarks; they represent the building blocks of scientific and engineering software.

For single-thread performance, the 14600KF is the clear winner. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,273 is 14.6% higher than the 273PE’s 3,650. This is critical for legacy applications, web browsers, and any software that cannot utilize multiple cores. The 14600KF’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus the 273PE’s 5.70 GHz might suggest the opposite, but the data shows the 14600KF’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.30 GHz gives it an edge in lightly-threaded tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 10 nm process node and are both built by Intel, but their underlying designs diverge significantly. The 273PE is based on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the 14600KF uses the Raptor Lake architecture—specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh. Bartlett Lake is a newer design, though the fact pack does not specify its microarchitectural details. The 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, utilizing a higher thread-to-core ratio of 2:1, which suggests hyperthreading on all cores. The 14600KF has 14 cores and 20 threads, indicating that some cores do not support simultaneous multithreading, likely a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores.

Cache allocation is a major differentiator. The 273PE features 36 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the 14600KF’s 24 MB. This 50% larger L3 cache likely explains the 273PE’s dominance in prime number and physics workloads, which benefit from larger working sets stored on-die. Both chips have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, so the difference is purely in the shared L3 pool. The 273PE also lacks a die size figure in the fact pack, while the 14600KF has a die size of 257 mm².

Memory support is identical—both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel buses—but the 273PE lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 14600KF’s bandwidth is not provided in the fact pack. The 273PE includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, whereas the 14600KF has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the null value for that field. This is a notable difference for users who need a fallback display output without a discrete GPU. Both support ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

The 273PE has a locked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: false), while the 14600KF has an unlocked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: true). This means the 14600KF can be overclocked, while the 273PE cannot. The 14600KF’s 65 W higher TDP (125 W vs 65 W) suggests it is designed for higher sustained power delivery, which aligns with its overclocking capability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The 14600KF has more physical cores, but the 273PE has more logical threads.

Q: Does the 273PE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 9 273PE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core i5-14600KF does not have integrated graphics, as indicated by the null value in the fact pack.

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

A: The Intel Core i5-14600KF scores 32,544 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the Intel Core 9 273PE’s 31,288 by 3.9%.

Q: Can the 273PE be overclocked?

A: No, the Intel Core 9 273PE has a locked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: false). The Intel Core i5-14600KF has an unlocked multiplier (multiplierUnlocked: true), allowing overclocking.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head data?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark physics, where the Intel Core 9 273PE scores 3,120 versus the Intel Core i5-14600KF’s 2,449, a 27.4% advantage for the 273PE.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has an average benchmark score of 49,845, which is 0.9% higher than the Intel Core i5-14600KF’s 49,394. Both rank at the 90th percentile of all CPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern: the 14600KF wins every test by nearly the same margin. In R15 multi-core, the 14600KF scores 3,280 versus 3,153 for the 273PE, a 3.9% lead. Single-core R15 shows 462 versus 445, a 3.7% edge. This consistency carries through R20 (13,668 vs 13,140, multi-core; 1,929 vs 1,855, single-core) and R23 (32,544 vs 31,288, multi-core; 4,594 vs 4,417, single-core). The 3.8-3.9% margin in multi-core tests suggests the 14600KF’s two extra cores provide a steady throughput advantage despite having four fewer threads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The 14600KF dominates in data compression (485,140 vs 405,885, a 16.3% win) and data encryption (27,608 vs 22,719, a 17.7% win). These are memory-intensive workloads, and the 14600KF’s higher clock speeds likely compensate for its smaller L3 cache. The 273PE strikes back in find prime numbers (203 vs 161, a 26.1% win) and physics (3,120 vs 2,449, a 27.4% win). The prime number test is a pure arithmetic loop, and the physics test simulates rigid bodies—both benefit from the 273PE’s 36 MB L3 cache, which can hold more of the working set.

In floating-point math, the 273PE scores 107,884 versus 93,048, a 15.9% margin. Integer math shows a 10.7% win for the 273PE (139,410 vs 125,982). These are broad tests that exercise the ALU and FPU extensively. The 14600KF takes the multithread test (38,697 vs 36,810, a 4.9% win) and random string sorting (52,056 vs 45,098, a 13.4% win). The single-thread score is a decisive 14.6% win for the 14600KF (4,273 vs 3,650). The data shows a clear bifurcation: the 14600KF excels in tasks that benefit from higher clock speeds and more physical cores, while the 273PE wins in workloads that require large, fast cache and arithmetic throughput.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the fact pack.

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core i5-14600KF |

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

| Cores | 12 | 14 |

| Threads | 24 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Generation | Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Die Size | Not provided | 257 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not provided |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | None |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2023-10-16 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $294 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SA4QD | SRN42 |