Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 9 273PE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is overwhelmingly one-sided. Out of 17 recorded tests, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 16, while the Core 9 273PE manages a single victory. The margin of victory in most tests is substantial, often exceeding 25%.

Starting with Cinebench results, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 42,718 against the Core 9's 31,288, a 26.8% advantage. The single-core gap is nearly identical at 26.7%, with scores of 6,030 versus 4,417. This pattern repeats in R20 and R15, with the Ultra 5 leading by 26.8% in multi-core and 26.7% in single-core across both older versions of the benchmark. The consistency of this margin across all Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark's suite tells a similar story but with some notable variations. In data compression, the Ultra 5 scores 553,155 versus 405,885, a 26.6% lead. Multi-thread performance shows the same 26.6% gap, with scores of 50,146 and 36,810. Floating point math favors the Ultra 5 by 32.5%, with 159,824 against 107,884. Random string sorting shows a 32.9% difference, with the Ultra 5 posting 67,209 versus 45,098.

The largest gaps appear in specific instruction-heavy workloads. Data encryption shows a 45% difference, with the Ultra 5 scoring 41,292 against 22,719. Extended instructions reveal a 42.6% gap, with 42,880 versus 24,630. Prime number finding demonstrates the most extreme divergence at 55.1%, with the Ultra 5 scoring 452 against 203. These results indicate that the Ultra 5's architecture handles encryption, vector extensions, and integer-heavy algorithms far more efficiently than the Core 9.

Single-thread performance in PassMark shows a 22.3% difference, with the Ultra 5 scoring 4,698 versus 3,650. Physics performance is the closest race, with the Ultra 5 winning by only 2% (3,183 versus 3,120). This near-tie in physics suggests that the Core 9's architecture remains competitive in that specific workload, despite trailing elsewhere.

The Core 9 273PE's lone win comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 139,410 against the Ultra 5's 123,030, a 13.3% advantage. This is a meaningful result because integer math underpins many general-purpose computing tasks, including productivity applications and certain types of data processing. However, it stands as an isolated counterpoint in an otherwise dominant performance from the Ultra 5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design approaches from Intel. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It packs 12 cores with 24 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on TSMC's 3 nm node, with 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. The newer, denser process node gives the Ultra 5 a significant manufacturing advantage, allowing more cores in a similar power envelope.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 5 offers 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Shared L3 cache favors the Core 9 at 36 MB, versus 30 MB for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5's larger per-core caches help explain its strong single-thread and instruction-heavy performance, while the Core 9's larger L3 pool supports its integer math advantage.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The Core 9 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz but boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Ultra 5 runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The Core 9's higher boost clock does not translate into benchmark wins, indicating that the Ultra 5's architectural efficiency at lower clocks more than compensates. The Core 9's 65 W TDP contrasts sharply with the Ultra 5's 125 W TDP, meaning the Ultra 5 consumes considerably more power to deliver its performance.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 5 at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, a 28.6% advantage that contributes to its performance in memory-intensive tasks. Both processors use dual-channel memory and support ECC. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The Core 9 integrates UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 has no integrated graphics at all. The Ultra 5 uses an Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, meaning they are not interchangeable in existing motherboards. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 9 does not, giving the Ultra 5 overclocking headroom that the Core 9 lacks. The Ultra 5's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, figures not provided for the Core 9.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice straightforward for most users. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is faster in nearly every measured workload, often by margins between 22% and 55%. Its average benchmark score of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PE's average of 49,845 sits in the 90th percentile. The Ultra 5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PQE (0.1% ahead), AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (0.4% ahead), Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (1% behind), and AMD EPYC 4465P (1.1% behind). The Core 9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.9% ahead), Intel Core i9-13980HX (1.1% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (1.2% behind).

For users focused on multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, or any workload involving extended instruction sets, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice. Its 26.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 45% lead in encryption translate directly into faster completion times. The 55.1% advantage in prime number finding indicates superior integer throughput in algorithms that rely on branching and modular arithmetic.

The Core 9 273PE retains relevance only for users whose workloads heavily emphasize PassMark integer math, where it leads by 13.3%. Its lower TDP of 65 W versus 125 W also makes it more suitable for systems with strict power or cooling constraints. The Core 9's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 could matter for users upgrading from an existing DDR4 platform, though the Ultra 5's higher memory bandwidth suggests better future-proofing for DDR5-only builds.

The production status of both processors is listed as Active, and their release dates are close together, with the Core 9 launching on 2026-03-08 and the Ultra 5 on 2026-03-10. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 is $549, while the Ultra 5 carries a launch MSRP of $184. The Ultra 5's unlocked multiplier adds overclocking potential that the locked Core 9 cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 5 has more physical cores, but the Core 9 uses Hyper-Threading to double its thread count.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz. Despite the Core 9's higher boost clock, the Ultra 5 wins all six Cinebench tests by roughly 26.7%.

Q: Which processor supports more memory types?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory and support ECC.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not compatible with the same motherboards.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,159, while the Core 9 273PE averages 49,845. The Ultra 5 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 90th percentile for the Core 9.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus overclockable?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PE does not, meaning its clock speeds are locked.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in rendering workloads, as shown by its 26.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and identical margins in R20 and R15 multi-core. It also wins in data compression, encryption, extended instruction execution, prime number finding, floating point math, multithreaded tasks, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. Its 22.3% single-thread advantage makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and many games. The Ultra 5's 45% lead in data encryption and 42.6% lead in extended instructions positions it well for security software, scientific computing, and any workload using SIMD or vector operations. Its 32.5% advantage in floating point math benefits physics simulations, 3D rendering, and financial modeling. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, versus 89.6 GB/s, supports these performance advantages in memory-bound tasks.

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins exclusively in PassMark integer math, where its 139,410 score beats the Ultra 5's 123,030 by 13.3%. This matters for workloads that process large volumes of integer operations, such as database indexing, compression algorithms that rely on integer arithmetic, and certain types of data validation. The Core 9 also offers the practical advantage of supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which could simplify upgrades for users with existing DDR4 modules. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for compact or low-power systems where the Ultra 5's 125 W TDP might require more robust cooling and power delivery. The Core 9's integrated UHD Graphics 730 provides basic display output without a discrete GPU, whereas the Ultra 5 requires a separate graphics card. For users building a system without a dedicated GPU, the Core 9's integrated graphics represent a functional advantage, though its performance in all other benchmarks lags significantly.

The physics test is the closest contest, with the Ultra 5 winning by just 2% (3,183 versus 3,120), indicating that the Core 9 remains competitive in that specific workload. However, this narrow margin does little to offset the Ultra 5's dominance elsewhere. The overall benchmark data shows the Ultra 5 as the stronger processor for virtually all computing scenarios, with the Core 9 retaining niche appeal for integer math workloads, DDR4 compatibility, and lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 12 | 18 |

| Threads | 24 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not provided | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not provided | 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) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $184 |