Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data divides these two desktop processors by workload type. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins the multi-core rendering suite decisively, taking Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests with deltas between 111.8% and 111.9%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 counters in single-thread PassMark tests, leading by 19.2% in PassMark single-thread, and also wins in data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, and random string sorting. The Core 9 273PE holds a 90th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 235 sits at the 89th percentile. The Core 9 273PE has a higher average benchmark score of 49845 against 46062 for the Core Ultra 5 235. Users focused on Cinebench-style rendering should select the Core 9 273PE. Users prioritizing PassMark integer, encryption, or single-thread workloads should select the Core Ultra 5 235.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 generation. Its process node is 10 nm and Intel is the foundry. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of Core Ultra Series 2. Its process node is 3 nm and TSMC is the foundry. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235 reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 9 273PE does not have transistor or die size data in the database. Cache structures differ per core: the Core 9 273PE carries 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235 carries 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support differs, with the Core 9 273PE accepting DDR4 and DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 235 accepts only DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s. The Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 5 235 does not. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, and the Core Ultra 5 235 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 9 273PE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 5 235 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. The sockets are not interchangeable: the Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PE released on 2026-03-08, while the Core Ultra 5 235 released on 2025-01-06.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores, while the Core 9 273PE has 12 cores. However, the Core 9 273PE has 24 threads versus 14 threads for the Core Ultra 5 235, meaning the Core 9 273PE enables simultaneous multi-threading while the Core Ultra 5 235 does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235 boosts to 5.00 GHz. In contrast, the Core Ultra 5 235 has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz for the Core 9 273PE.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 9 273PE has 36 MB shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 235 has 24 MB shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 235 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches at 192 KB and 3 MB, respectively, versus 80 KB and 2 MB for the Core 9 273PE.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core 9 273PE has an average benchmark score of 49845, compared to 46062 for the Core Ultra 5 235. The Core 9 273PE also sits at the 90th percentile versus all CPUs, one point higher than the Core Ultra 5 235's 89th percentile.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 235 does not list ECC memory support.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports only DDR5.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 12 (Core 9 273PE) versus 14 (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Threads: 24 (Core 9 273PE) versus 14 (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Base clock: 2.30 GHz (Core 9 273PE) versus 3.40 GHz (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Boost clock: 5.70 GHz (Core 9 273PE) versus 5.00 GHz (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Process node: 10 nm (Core 9 273PE) versus 3 nm (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Foundry: Intel (Core 9 273PE) versus TSMC (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Transistors: not listed (Core 9 273PE) versus 17,800 million (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Die size: not listed (Core 9 273PE) versus 243 mm² (Core Ultra 5 235)
• L1 cache per core: 80 KB (Core 9 273PE) versus 192 KB (Core Ultra 5 235)
• L2 cache per core: 2 MB (Core 9 273PE) versus 3 MB (Core Ultra 5 235)
• L3 cache shared: 36 MB (Core 9 273PE) versus 24 MB (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (Core 9 273PE) versus DDR5 only (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (Core 9 273PE) versus 102.4 GB/s (Core Ultra 5 235)
• ECC memory: supported (Core 9 273PE) versus not supported (Core Ultra 5 235)
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 16 CPU-only (Core 9 273PE) versus Gen 5, 20 CPU-only (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 (Core 9 273PE) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (Core 9 273PE) versus Intel Socket 1851 (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (Core 9 273PE) versus Arrow Lake-S (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Generation: Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)
• Release date: 2026-03-08 (Core 9 273PE) versus 2025-01-06 (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Launch MSRP: $549 (Core 9 273PE) versus $257 (Core Ultra 5 235)
• Part number: SA4QD (Core 9 273PE) versus SRQAS (Core Ultra 5 235)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a dominant performance gap for the Core 9 273PE. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 9 273PE scores 3153 against 1488 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a delta of 111.9%. The R15 single-core result mirrors this exactly: 445 versus 210, also 111.9%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13140 versus 6202, a 111.9% delta, and the single-core result is 1855 versus 875, a 112% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern with 31288 versus 14769, a 111.8% delta, and R23 single-core lands at 4417 versus 2085, a 111.8% delta. The data indicates the Core 9 273PE roughly doubles the Core Ultra 5 235 in every Cinebench measurement.

PassMark results are more divided. The Core 9 273PE wins PassMark integer math with 139410 versus 87948, a 58.5% delta, and PassMark physics with 3120 versus 2570, a 21.4% delta. The Core 9 273PE also edges out the Core Ultra 5 235 in data compression, 405885 versus 390711, a 3.9% delta. The Core Ultra 5 235 takes PassMark single-thread at 4516 versus 3650, a 19.2% delta, and the duplicate singlethread entry confirms the same result. The Core Ultra 5 235 wins extended instructions with 32752 versus 24630, a 24.8% delta, and data encryption with 29293 versus 22719, a 22.4% delta. Find prime numbers favors the Core Ultra 5 235 strongly at 371 versus 203, a 45.3% delta. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 235 at 117951 versus 107884, an 8.5% delta. Random string sorting goes to the Core Ultra 5 235 at 48980 versus 45098, a 7.9% delta. PassMark multithread narrowly favors the Core Ultra 5 235 at 37816 versus 36810, a 2.7% delta. The final win tally in the head-to-head table is 9 wins for the Core 9 273PE and 8 wins for the Core Ultra 5 235.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PE dominates rendering workloads. Its Cinebench multi-core advantages of 111.8% to 111.9% across R15, R20, and R23 indicate a strong position for CPU-bound rendering tasks. Its 58.5% lead in PassMark integer math suggests workloads with heavy integer arithmetic favor it. The 21.4% lead in PassMark physics points to simulation or physics processing scenarios. Data compression also falls to the Core 9 273PE, but the margin is slim at 3.9%. The larger 36 MB shared L3 cache and 24 threads likely explain the multi-threaded Cinebench advantage, although the database does not specify causation.

The Core Ultra 5 235 wins in several PassMark subcategories despite the lower average benchmark score. Its 19.2% lead in single-thread PassMark indicates faster per-thread execution in that test. The 45.3% lead in find prime numbers shows an advantage in prime-finding arithmetic. Extended instructions lead by 24.8%, and data encryption leads by 22.4%. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 235 by 8.5%. Random string sorting favors it by 7.9%. PassMark multithread goes to the Core Ultra 5 235 by 2.7%, a narrow result that contrasts with the large Cinebench multi-core deficit. The Core Ultra 5 235 also has the higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, which may support its PassMark wins. The Core Ultra 5 235 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core 9 273PE uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The data does not isolate process node effects, but the specification difference is recorded. Overall, the Core 9 273PE is the choice for Cinebench-class rendering and integer-heavy tasks, while the Core Ultra 5 235 is the choice for PassMark single-thread, encryption, extended instructions, prime finding, floating point, and multithread workloads.