Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall performance advantage for the Intel Core 9 273PE. Across the entire head-to-head test suite, the Core 9 273PE wins 15 of 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V wins only 2. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PE is 49845, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 236V averages 21952, landing in the 75th percentile.

The largest margin of victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PE scores 139410 against 38765 for the Core Ultra 5 236V, a delta of 259.6%. This is the kind of result that shows up in heavily threaded integer workloads such as compilation or scientific computing. Data compression also shows a massive gap, with the Core 9 273PE scoring 405885 versus 176554, a 129.9% advantage. Floating point math follows a similar pattern: 107884 versus 52774, a 104.4% lead.

Cinebench results are uniformly lopsided. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PE scores 31288 against 15628, exactly doubling the Core Ultra 5 236V's output with a 100.2% delta. The single-core R23 result is also double: 4417 versus 2206. Cinebench R20 and R15 multi-core tests show identical doubling, with scores of 13140 versus 6563 and 3153 versus 1575 respectively. Single-core variants in R20 and R15 also show roughly 100% advantages, 1855 versus 926 and 445 versus 222.

PassMark multi-thread testing shows 36810 versus 18375, a 100.3% delta. Physics simulation scores 3120 versus 1503, a 107.6% lead for the Core 9 273PE. Random string sorting shows 45098 versus 21628, a 108.5% margin. Data encryption is less dramatic but still strongly favors the Core 9 273PE: 22719 versus 13049, a 74.1% delta. Extended instruction testing shows 24630 versus 15451, a 59.4% advantage. The smallest win for the Core 9 273PE is in prime number finding, 203 versus 171, an 18.7% margin.

The only two tests won by the Core Ultra 5 236V are PassMark single-thread and its duplicate singlethread entry, both scoring 3893 versus 3650. That is a 6.2% advantage for the mobile chip in single-threaded PassMark testing. This is notable because the Core Ultra 5 236V has a lower boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 5.70 GHz for the Core 9 273PE, yet it still manages a higher PassMark single-thread score, suggesting better instructions-per-clock efficiency in this specific test.

For context on the Core 9 273PE's standing, its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 with an average score of 49796 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49394 (0.9% behind), and the Intel Core i9-13980HX at 50398 (1.1% ahead). The Core Ultra 5 236V's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V at 21981 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i7-11700F at 21988 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X at 21992 (0.2% behind). These comparisons show that the Core 9 273PE competes with current-generation high-end desktop and mobile HX parts, while the Core Ultra 5 236V sits near older mid-range desktop parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates in every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 31288 versus 15628 for the Core Ultra 5 236V, a 100.2% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows 36810 versus 18375, also a 100.3% advantage.

Q: Is there any test where the Core Ultra 5 236V wins?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 236V wins PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 3893 versus 3650, a 6.2% margin. This appears twice in the data as both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 236V compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 236V is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V, which scores 21981, just 0.1% higher. It also sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-11700F and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PE scores 139410 versus 38765, a 259.6% difference. This is over two and a half times the output of the Core Ultra 5 236V.

Q: How does the Core 9 273PE's average score compare to its closest competitor?

A: The Core 9 273PE averages 49845, which is just 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 49796 and 0.9% above the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49394.

Q: What is the single-core Cinebench performance comparison?

A: The Core 9 273PE scores 4417 in Cinebench R23 single-core, exactly double the 2206 of the Core Ultra 5 236V, a 100.2% delta. Similar doubling appears in R20 (1855 versus 926) and R15 (445 versus 222).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on an Intel 10 nm process. It targets the desktop market and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Lunar Lake architecture, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. It is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2833.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 236V has no hyper-threading, which explains its thread count matching its core count. The Core 9 273PE doubles its threads over cores.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 9 273PE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 236V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the Core 9 273PE is critical for multi-threaded workloads that share data.

Integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 236V uses Arc 130V. The Arc 130V is a more capable integrated GPU, which matters for a mobile platform where discrete graphics may not always be present.

Memory support also differs. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel operation and a measured memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 236V supports memory that depends on the motherboard, uses dual-channel operation, and does not support ECC. The database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for the Core Ultra 5 236V.

PCIe connectivity shows a major difference. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 236V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. This affects expandability for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage. The Core 9 273PE has a locked multiplier and is listed with a launch MSRP of $549.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 12 on the Core 9 273PE versus 8 on the Core Ultra 5 236V
• Threads: 24 versus 8
• Base clock: 2.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.70 GHz versus 4.70 GHz
• TDP: 65 watts versus 17 watts
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2833
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Lunar Lake
• Generation: Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Lunar Lake)
• Process node: 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus dependent on motherboard
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus not recorded
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported
• PCIe lanes: 16 lanes versus 4 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc 130V
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2026-03-08 versus 2024-09-23
• Part number: SA4QD versus SRPN2SRPN3

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about raw performance. The Intel Core 9 273PE is dramatically faster in nearly every measurable category, with multi-core scores roughly double those of the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V across Cinebench versions. In integer math, the lead extends to 259.6%. Anyone building a desktop system for heavy multi-threaded work should choose the Core 9 273PE, which sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs and matches or beats recent high-end desktop and mobile HX parts within 1.2%.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V has one clear strength: PassMark single-thread performance, where it beats the Core 9 273PE by 6.2%. It also operates at a 17 watt TDP versus 65 watts, which is a major consideration for battery-powered devices. The 3 nm TSMC process and Lunar Lake architecture deliver efficiency that the 10 nm Bartlett Lake part cannot match. For mobile systems requiring long battery life and adequate single-thread performance, the Core Ultra 5 236V is the appropriate choice.

The Core 9 273PE is a desktop processor with a 65 watt TDP, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC support, and dual DDR4/DDR5 compatibility. The Core Ultra 5 236V is a mobile processor with a 17 watt TDP, 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, no ECC, and motherboard-dependent memory support. These are different tools for different jobs. The data confirms that the Core 9 273PE is the performance leader, while the Core Ultra 5 236V is the efficiency leader in a lower-power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins in all multi-threaded rendering scenarios. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 100.2% lead, and the same doubling appears in R20 and R15. This makes it the clear choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that scales across many threads. The 24 threads versus 8 threads is the primary driver of these results.

The Core 9 273PE also wins in all PassMark compute tests except single-thread. Integer math shows a 259.6% advantage, making it superior for compilation, data processing, and scientific computing. Floating point math at 104.4% ahead covers simulation and engineering workloads. Data compression at 129.9% ahead helps with archiving and database operations. Data encryption at 74.1% ahead matters for security applications and VPN throughput.

The Core Ultra 5 236V wins only in PassMark single-thread testing with a 6.2% margin. This suggests it may have an edge in lightly threaded applications that depend on high single-core efficiency, such as basic office tasks, web browsing, or legacy software that cannot use multiple cores. Its 17 watt TDP also makes it the only sensible choice for fanless or ultra-portable designs where thermal limits are strict.

For desktop builders with access to Socket 1700 and a 65 watt cooling solution, the Core 9 273PE delivers top-tier performance in the 90th percentile. For mobile system designers prioritizing efficiency and battery life, the Core Ultra 5 236V provides adequate performance in the 75th percentile with a fraction of the power draw. The two processors share neither a socket, nor a process node, nor a cache layout, and the benchmark data reflects those fundamental architectural differences.