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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusual split: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PE takes only 3. Yet the overall average benchmark scores tell a different story, with the Core 9 273PE at 49,845 and the Core Ultra 5 235A at 48,201. That gap is small, and the nearest-rival data confirms both chips sit in the same performance tier, with the Core 9 273PE edging out the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 by just 0.1% and the Core Ultra 5 235A doing the same against the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380.

The most dramatic single result is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PE scores 139,410 against 88,626 for the Core Ultra 5 235A, a 57.3% advantage. That is the largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark suite. The Core 9 273PE also leads in PassMark physics, 3,120 to 2,437, a 28% margin, and in data compression, 405,885 to 393,800, a 3.1% edge.

The Core Ultra 5 235A counters with a broad sweep of wins, most notably in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 392 versus 203, a 48.2% lead. It also dominates in data encryption, 30,136 to 22,719 (24.6% ahead), and in extended instructions, 31,625 to 24,630 (22.1% ahead). Single-thread performance is firmly in the Core Ultra 5 235A's corner: PassMark single thread shows 4,557 against 3,650, a 19.9% gap, and every Cinebench iteration, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core, goes to the Core Ultra 5 235A by a consistent 4.1%.

That consistency is worth noting. Across all six Cinebench tests, the delta is exactly 4.1%, which suggests the Core Ultra 5 235A has a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage that shows up in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32,633 versus 31,288, and in R23 single-core it scores 4,607 versus 4,417. The Core 9 273PE's higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz against 5.00 GHz does not translate into Cinebench wins, indicating that clock speed alone cannot overcome the newer core design.

The remaining PassMark tests split more narrowly. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 235A, 118,778 to 107,884, a 9.2% margin. Random string sorting also favors it, 49,489 to 45,098, an 8.9% edge. Multi-thread overall goes to the Core Ultra 5 235A, 38,392 to 36,810, again at the recurring 4.1% delta.

The data paints a clear picture: the Core 9 273PE wins where raw integer throughput and physics simulation matter, while the Core Ultra 5 235A wins nearly everything else, often by substantial margins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Core 9 273PE is built on Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm Intel process, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm TSMC node. That process difference is significant: the Core Ultra 5 235A packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 9 273PE has no transistor count or die size listed in the database.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning every core supports two threads. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating it runs entirely on single-threaded cores without Hyper-Threading. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 9 273PE's 24 threads give it a thread count advantage, yet the Core Ultra 5 235A still wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, which points to the efficiency of the newer core architecture.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. The Core 9 273PE allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A has more per-core cache at every level, while the Core 9 273PE has more total L3.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235A is DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth favors the newer chip: 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235A versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PE. The Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 5 235A does not.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core 9 273PE offers 16 Gen 5 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235A provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on both, but they are different parts: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 9 273PE, and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU on the Core Ultra 5 235A.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. Both are locked multipliers, so neither chip supports overclocking. The Core 9 273PE has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost of 5.70 GHz; the Core Ultra 5 235A runs at 3.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Both are rated at 65 W TDP.

Release dates show the Core Ultra 5 235A came first, launching on 2025-07-28, with the Core 9 273PE following on 2026-03-08. Both are active production parts in the desktop segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A reaches 5.00 GHz. Despite the higher clock, the Core 9 273PE loses all single-thread benchmarks.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 235A win most benchmarks despite having fewer threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The newer 3 nm Arrow Lake architecture delivers higher per-core efficiency, which shows in its consistent 4.1% lead across all Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between these two CPUs?

A: PassMark integer math favors the Core 9 273PE by 57.3%, with a score of 139,410 against 88,626. The largest gap in favor of the Core Ultra 5 235A is 48.2% in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 392 versus 203.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 5 235A has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers. The Core 9 273PE and the Core Ultra 5 235A are multiplier-unlocked false according to the database.

Q: Which socket does each processor use?

A: The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not compatible with each other's motherboards.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward recommendation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the better all-round processor for general desktop work, rendering, and most compute tasks. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and the majority of PassMark workloads. Its single-thread advantage of 19.9% in PassMark and its consistent 4.1% edge in Cinebench make it the stronger choice for everyday responsiveness and content creation.

The Intel Core 9 273PE is the specialist choice. Its 57.3% lead in integer math and 28% lead in physics simulation indicate a clear strength in workloads that rely heavily on those operations. It also wins data compression by 3.1%. Anyone whose primary applications are integer-heavy or physics-based should consider it.

Both processors sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 9 273PE has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 49,845 against 48,201, but that aggregate hides the fact that the Core Ultra 5 235A wins most individual tests. The Core Ultra 5 235A also offers more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16) and higher memory bandwidth.

The Core 9 273PE retains value for specific use cases: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility for older systems, and the integer and physics performance lead. The Core Ultra 5 235A is the more broadly capable processor, and the benchmark record supports choosing it for most builds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core Ultra 5 235A |

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

| Cores | 12 | 14 |

| Threads | 24 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-07-28 |

Where Each One Wins

Choose the Intel Core 9 273PE for workloads dominated by integer math, physics simulation, and data compression. The 57.3% integer math lead and 28% physics lead are decisive. It is also the only one of the two with ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, making it suitable for memory-sensitive or legacy-system builds. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache is larger than the 24 MB on the Core Ultra 5 235A.

Choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A for rendering, single-threaded applications, encryption, and general desktop use. It wins every Cinebench test by 4.1%, leads PassMark single thread by 19.9%, and has substantial advantages in find prime numbers (48.2%), data encryption (24.6%), and extended instructions (22.1%). It also provides more PCIe lanes and higher memory bandwidth. The 3 nm process from TSMC delivers better per-core efficiency, and its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz against 2.30 GHz contributes to its everyday responsiveness.

For most builders, the Core Ultra 5 235A is the safer recommendation. The Core 9 273PE should be reserved for those who know their workloads specifically benefit from integer throughput and physics performance, or who need ECC memory support.