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

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two desktop processors. The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates the head-to-head benchmark comparison, winning 13 of 17 tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T takes 4 wins. The Core 9 273PE posts an average benchmark score of 49845, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 235T averages 38561, sitting in the 86th percentile. The Core 9 273PE also carries a launch MSRP of $549, while the Core Ultra 5 235T has a launch MSRP of $247.

For users whose workloads align with Cinebench rendering, integer math, physics simulation, or data compression, the Core 9 273PE is the clear choice. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at a 0.1% higher average score, the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 0.9% lower, the Intel Core i9-13980HX at 1.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 at 1.2% higher. The Core Ultra 5 235T sits near the Intel Core i5-14500 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 0.4%, the Intel Core 9 270H at 0.6%, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H at 0.7%.

Users who need single-threaded PassMark performance, prime number finding, or data encryption should consider the Core Ultra 5 235T. The Core 9 273PE's 12 cores and 24 threads give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, but the Core Ultra 5 235T's 14 cores and 14 threads deliver specific wins in certain algorithmic tasks. The choice depends entirely on workload composition, as neither processor is universally superior.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins decisively across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 3153 against 2644 for the Core Ultra 5 235T, a 19.3% advantage. The same 19.3% delta appears in Cinebench R15 singlecore (445 vs 373), Cinebench R20 multicore (13140 vs 11017), Cinebench R20 singlecore (1855 vs 1555), Cinebench R23 multicore (31288 vs 26232), and Cinebench R23 singlecore (4417 vs 3703). This consistent margin across both single and multi-threaded rendering indicates a broad architectural superiority in Cinebench workloads.

PassMark integer math shows the largest gap between the two. The Core 9 273PE scores 139410, while the Core Ultra 5 235T manages 84244, a 65.5% difference. Physics simulation also heavily favors the Core 9 273PE, with 3120 versus 2157, a 44.6% edge. Data compression shows 405885 against 295100, a 37.5% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the Core 9 273PE at 45098 versus 35377, a 27.5% margin. Multithreaded PassMark performance favors the Core 9 273PE at 36810 versus 30918, a 19.1% difference. Extended instructions and floating point math show smaller but still positive margins for the Core 9 273PE, at 6.1% and 1.3% respectively.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins in four specific tests. PassMark single thread shows 4339 against 3650 for the Core 9 273PE, a 15.9% advantage. Find prime numbers delivers 318 versus 203, a 36.2% edge for the Core Ultra 5 235T. Data encryption shows 23457 against 22719, a 3.1% advantage. These wins cluster around single-threaded PassMark performance and specialized algorithmic workloads, while the Core 9 273PE maintains dominance in almost everything else.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 235T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235T contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the transistor count and die size for the Core 9 273PE are not recorded in the database.

Core and thread configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading is present. The Core 9 273PE runs at a base clock of 2.30 GHz with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235T runs at 2.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Both processors have a 65 watt TDP.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 235T offers 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Core Ultra 5 235T may contribute to its wins in certain single-threaded and algorithmic tests, while the larger shared L3 cache on the Core 9 273PE supports its multithreaded dominance.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235T does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235T provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Socket compatibility is distinct: the Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235T uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PE released on 2026-03-08, while the Core Ultra 5 235T released on 2025-01-06.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores. However, the Core 9 273PE has 24 threads versus 14 threads for the Core Ultra 5 235T.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE scores 31288 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T scores 26232. This gives the Core 9 273PE a 19.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 235T wins 4 tests: PassMark single thread (4339 vs 3650), find prime numbers (318 vs 203), data encryption (23457 vs 22719), and the duplicate PassMark singlethread test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T provides 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Intel Core 9 273PE provides 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports DDR5 only, while the Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T ranks in the 86th percentile.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two processors?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Intel Core 9 273PE scores 139410 versus 84244 for the Core Ultra 5 235T, a 65.5% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the most consistent picture of performance differences. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Core 9 273PE holds a uniform 19.3% advantage over the Core Ultra 5 235T. This consistency is notable because it appears in both single-core and multi-core variants. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 3153 versus 2644, while R15 singlecore shows 445 versus 373. R20 multicore shows 13140 versus 11017, and R20 singlecore shows 1855 versus 1555. R23 multicore shows 31288 versus 26232, and R23 singlecore shows 4417 versus 3703. The identical percentage across all versions suggests a fundamental per-thread performance advantage rather than a scaling effect.

PassMark integer math delivers the most lopsided result in the entire comparison. The Core 9 273PE scores 139410, while the Core Ultra 5 235T scores 84244. The 65.5% delta indicates that integer arithmetic operations execute substantially faster on the Core 9 273PE. This test often reflects compiler efficiency, instruction handling, and core architecture, and the data shows a significant gap that no other benchmark approaches.

Physics simulation also heavily favors the Core 9 273PE, with a score of 3120 versus 2157 for the Core Ultra 5 235T, a 44.6% margin. Data compression follows with 405885 versus 295100, a 37.5% advantage. Random string sorting shows 45098 versus 35377, a 27.5% gap. Multithreaded PassMark performance shows 36810 versus 30918, a 19.1% difference. Extended instructions show a narrower 6.1% edge for the Core 9 273PE, with 24630 versus 23212. Floating point math is the closest Core 9 273PE win, at 107884 versus 106546, only 1.3% apart.

The Core Ultra 5 235T's wins present a different pattern. PassMark single thread shows 4339 versus 3650, a 15.9% advantage. This is the second-largest margin in either direction, and it indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235T's per-thread performance in this specific workload is substantially better. Find prime numbers shows 318 versus 203, a 36.2% margin for the Core Ultra 5 235T. This test measures prime number generation efficiency, where the Core Ultra 5 235T's architecture clearly excels. Data encryption shows 23457 versus 22719, a modest 3.1% edge for the Core Ultra 5 235T.

The overall win count stands at 13 for the Core 9 273PE and 4 for the Core Ultra 5 235T. The average benchmark score reflects this dominance: 49845 for the Core 9 273PE versus 38561 for the Core Ultra 5 235T. The Core 9 273PE's average score places it nearly level with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, which posts 49796, and above the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49394. The Core Ultra 5 235T's average score aligns closely with the Intel Core i5-14500 at 38531 and the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392.

The benchmark data indicates that the Core 9 273PE delivers broadly superior performance across rendering, integer math, physics, compression, and sorting workloads. The Core Ultra 5 235T counters with specific strengths in single-threaded PassMark performance, prime number finding, and encryption, alongside a higher memory bandwidth figure of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. The architectural differences between the 10 nm Bartlett Lake design and the 3 nm Arrow Lake design, combined with the core and cache configurations, explain the observed performance distribution.