Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 9 273PE compare to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF holds a higher average benchmark score of 55,093 compared to the Core 9 273PE's 49,845. The Core Ultra 5 245KF also sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PE sits at the 90th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins only 2: PassMark integer math and PassMark physics.

Q: What are the architecture differences between these two CPUs?

A: The Core 9 273PE is built on Intel's 10 nm process under the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF uses TSMC's 3 nm process with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The Core Ultra 5 245KF uses 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating no hyperthreading. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, giving it 12 more threads despite having 2 fewer cores.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 5 245KF supports only DDR5 with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and no ECC support.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 5 245KF's 5.20 GHz. However, the Core Ultra 5 245KF has a much higher base clock of 4.20 GHz compared to 2.30 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies within Intel's lineup. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 245KF uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and is fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node, a significant manufacturing advantage that allows for 17,800 million transistors within a 243 mm² die.

Thread configuration reveals a major architectural split. The Core 9 273PE delivers 12 cores and 24 threads, using simultaneous multithreading to double thread count. The Core Ultra 5 245KF provides 14 cores and 14 threads, with no multithreading enabled. This means the Core 9 273PE offers more logical threads (24 versus 14) despite having fewer physical cores.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 9 273PE allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 245KF allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, but shares only 24 MB of L3 cache. The Core 9 273PE therefore holds a 12 MB advantage in shared L3 capacity.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 9 273PE accepts both DDR4 and DDR5 modules, making it compatible with older platforms, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF supports DDR5 exclusively. The Core Ultra 5 245KF compensates with higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by the Core 9 273PE but not by the Core Ultra 5 245KF.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Core 9 273PE includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics. The Core Ultra 5 245KF features an unlocked multiplier for overclocking; the Core 9 273PE does not. Sockets also separate the two: LGA 1700 for the Core 9 273PE and LGA 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 245KF.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245KF dominates the benchmark suite, but the margin varies widely by workload. In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 245KF consistently leads by 14.6%. That includes R15 multicore (3,693 versus 3,153), R15 singlecore (521 versus 445), R20 multicore (15,391 versus 13,140), R20 singlecore (2,172 versus 1,855), R23 multicore (36,647 versus 31,288), and R23 singlecore (5,173 versus 4,417). The uniform 14.6% delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates a consistent performance scaling advantage.

PassMark results show larger disparities in specific workloads. Data encryption strongly favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF, which scores 33,381 versus 22,719, a 31.9% advantage. Extended instructions show an even wider gap: 37,912 versus 24,630, a 35% lead. Find prime numbers produces the largest relative difference at 51.2%, with the Core Ultra 5 245KF scoring 416 versus 203. Single-thread performance favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF by 22.6%, with scores of 4,715 versus 3,650.

The Core 9 273PE fights back in two specific areas. PassMark integer math delivers its strongest result: 139,410 versus 98,854, a 41% advantage for the Core 9 273PE. This is the single largest winning margin in either direction across all benchmarks. The Core 9 273PE also wins PassMark physics with 3,120 versus 2,998, a narrower 4.1% edge.

Other PassMark tests fall in between these extremes. Data compression goes to the Core Ultra 5 245KF by 11.8% (460,123 versus 405,885). Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF by 18% (131,546 versus 107,884). Random string sorting gives the Core Ultra 5 245KF an 18.3% win (55,206 versus 45,098). Multithread performance shows a 14.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 245KF (43,110 versus 36,810).

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core count: 12 for the Core 9 273PE versus 14 for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. Thread count: 24 versus 14. Base clock: 2.30 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: 5.70 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. TDP: 65 watts for the Core 9 273PE versus 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 245KF.

Process node and foundry differ: 10 nm at Intel for the Core 9 273PE, 3 nm at TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Core Ultra 5 245KF (17,800 million and 243 mm²). Cache allocations differ per level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core, and L3 is 36 MB shared versus 24 MB shared.

Memory support splits between DDR4/DDR5 and DDR5-only. Memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support exists only on the Core 9 273PE. PCIe lane count favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF at 20 lanes versus 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are present only on the Core 9 273PE (UHD Graphics 730). The socket changes from LGA 1700 to LGA 1851. The multiplier is unlocked only on the Core Ultra 5 245KF. Release dates differ: 2026-03-08 for the Core 9 273PE versus 2024-10-23 for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. Launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PE is $549, stated once here. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245KF establishes dominance in rendering and content creation workloads. All six Cinebench tests, including both multicore and singlecore variants, go to the Core Ultra 5 245KF by a consistent 14.6%. The PassMark multithread test also confirms this pattern with the same 14.6% margin. For users running CPU-bound render jobs, the data consistently favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF also excels in security and cryptography-related tasks. Data encryption shows a 31.9% lead, and extended instructions show a 35% lead. Both workloads benefit from the newer 3 nm architecture and its instruction handling capabilities. The find prime numbers test, often associated with integer-heavy scientific loops, delivers the biggest win for the Core Ultra 5 245KF at 51.2%.

Memory bandwidth-sensitive operations favor the Core Ultra 5 245KF as well. Its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth correlates with wins in data compression (11.8%), random string sorting (18.3%), and floating point math (18%). These workloads frequently depend on sustained data throughput rather than raw core count.

The Core 9 273PE wins specifically in PassMark integer math with a 41% advantage. This remarkable result suggests the 12-core, 24-thread configuration with its larger 36 MB L3 cache handles integer-heavy algorithms more efficiently despite the lower overall clock speeds. The physics test also goes to the Core 9 273PE, though by a modest 4.1%, indicating that its thread scheduling advantages appear in simulation-type workloads.

The thermal envelope favors the Core 9 273PE at 65 watts versus 125 watts for the Core Ultra 5 245KF. For constrained environments where power draw matters, the Core 9 273PE delivers competitive performance in specific integer and physics tasks at lower power consumption. The Core Ultra 5 245KF requires a larger power budget but returns higher performance across most measured benchmarks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, holds the higher average benchmark score (55,093 versus 49,845), and ranks at the 91st percentile versus the 90th percentile for the Core 9 273PE. The consistent 14.6% margin across all Cinebench tests indicates broad-based architectural superiority for rendering workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF also positions well against its nearest rivals. It outperforms the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D by 0.6% in average score and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K by 1.9%. The Core 9 273PE trails the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 by only 0.1% and the Intel Core i5-14600KF by 0.9%, but leads the Intel Core i9-13980HX by 1.1% and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 by 1.2%.

The Core 9 273PE retains niche appeal. Its 41% victory in PassMark integer math demonstrates that certain integer-heavy workloads respond well to its 12-core, 24-thread arrangement and 36 MB L3 cache. The physics win, though smaller at 4.1%, adds another use case. ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility broaden its platform flexibility. Its 65 watt TDP suggests efficient operation for its performance class.

Socket compatibility is a decisive practical factor. The Core 9 273PE uses the older LGA 1700 socket, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF requires the LGA 1851 platform. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 in the Core 9 273PE provides display output without a discrete GPU; the Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics. The unlocked multiplier on the Core Ultra 5 245KF offers overclocking headroom that the locked Core 9 273PE cannot match.

The selection depends on workload priorities. The Core Ultra 5 245KF serves as the stronger general-purpose processor, with advantages in rendering, encryption, floating point math, data compression, and single-thread performance. The Core 9 273PE suits specific integer-heavy or physics-simulation tasks, along with builds requiring ECC memory, DDR4 support, or integrated graphics. For most measured workloads, the recorded data favors the Core Ultra 5 245KF.