Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Intel Core 9 273PE and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H are two distinct Intel processors that serve different market segments and use cases. The Core 9 273PE is a desktop part with a 65 TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile processor with a 25 TDP. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop chip winning 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the mobile chip wins only 3. The following analysis details where each processor excels, the architectural differences behind those results, and the specific benchmark scores that define their performance profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates the multi-threaded and content-creation workloads. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide a significant advantage in heavily parallel tasks, as evidenced by wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The desktop chip also leads in PassMark integer math, floating point math, multithread, data compression, random string sorting, and physics tests. These results indicate that the Core 9 273PE is better suited for rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with thread count.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a narrow but notable set of victories. It wins in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, scoring 4180 against 3650, a 12.7 percent advantage. This suggests that the mobile chip has a higher per-core efficiency in certain lightly threaded scenarios, despite having a lower boost clock of 4.70 compared to the desktop chip's 5.70. The Ultra 5 also wins the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 304 against 203, a 33.2 percent margin. This test is often sensitive to instruction-level parallelism and memory latency, indicating the mobile chip has some architectural strengths in specific integer workloads.

The use-case split is clear: the Core 9 273PE is for desktop workstations and performance PCs, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is for mobile platforms where power efficiency and single-thread responsiveness matter. The mobile chip's 25 TDP and 3 nm process node make it a more appropriate choice for laptops, whereas the desktop chip's 65 TDP and 10 nm process node are designed for systems with active cooling and higher power budgets.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different platforms. The Intel Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and fits the Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake-H) and fits the Intel BGA 2540 socket. This socket difference alone separates them into desktop versus mobile categories, with the BGA package being soldered for portable devices.

The process nodes differ significantly. The Core 9 273PE uses a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process, both fabricated by Intel. The smaller node for the mobile chip allows for lower power consumption and potentially higher transistor density, though the desktop chip's larger node supports higher clock speeds and more aggressive power delivery. The Core 9 273PE has a base clock of 2.30 and boost clock of 5.70, while the Ultra 5 338H has a base clock of 1.90 and boost clock of 4.70.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core 9 273PE has 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 338H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The desktop chip's larger L3 cache is a major factor in its multi-threaded performance, providing more room for shared data across the 12 cores and 24 threads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports only LPDDR5X memory in dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s but no ECC support. The mobile chip's higher bandwidth is notable, but its lower core count and lack of hyperthreading (12 threads versus 24) limit its overall throughput.

PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. This makes the desktop chip far more suitable for high-end graphics cards and expansion cards. The integrated graphics differ too: the Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370, which is a more capable iGPU for mobile systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PE scores 31288 against 16331 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 91.6 percent advantage. This test highlights the impact of having 24 threads versus 12 threads, as well as the desktop chip's higher boost clock and larger L3 cache. The single-core version of the same test shows an even larger relative gap: 4417 versus 2044, a 116.1 percent difference. This is surprising given the mobile chip's PassMark single-thread win, but it indicates that Cinebench R23 single-core is more sensitive to clock speed and IPC under sustained load, where the desktop chip's 5.70 boost clock prevails.

In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 13140 for the Core 9 273PE versus 10213 for the Ultra 5 338H, a 28.7 percent difference. The single-core score shows the same 28.7 percent margin, with 1855 versus 1441. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 25.9 percent gap (3153 versus 2504), while single-core shows a 45.9 percent gap (445 versus 305). These results confirm a consistent pattern: the Core 9 273PE leads in both multi-core and single-core rendering workloads, with the largest advantage in the newer R23 version.

PassMark integer math shows a massive 114.7 percent gap, with 139410 versus 64934. This test heavily benefits from the desktop chip's extra threads and higher clock. Floating point math shows a 28.3 percent gap (107884 versus 84067), and multithread shows a 28.2 percent gap (36810 versus 28717). Data compression shows a 46.8 percent gap (405885 versus 276539), while random string sorting shows a 32.3 percent gap (45098 versus 34082). Data encryption is closer, with only a 6.3 percent gap (22719 versus 21367), and extended instructions show just a 3 percent gap (24630 versus 23906).

The Ultra 5 338H wins in PassMark single-thread with 4180 versus 3650, a 12.7 percent advantage, and in find prime numbers with 304 versus 203, a 33.2 percent advantage. These wins suggest that for certain integer-heavy single-thread tasks, the mobile chip's newer architecture and possibly higher IPC per clock compensate for its lower boost clock. The physics test shows a 15.7 percent gap in favor of the desktop chip (3120 versus 2697).

The Verdict

The data clearly positions the Intel Core 9 273PE as the higher-performance processor, with a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs compared to the Ultra 5 338H's 84th percentile. Its average benchmark score is 49845 versus 33989, a difference of about 46.6 percent. The desktop chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (0.1 percent delta), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.9 percent delta), Intel Core i9-13980HX (1.1 percent delta), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (1.2 percent delta), indicating it sits in a competitive desktop performance tier.

The Core Ultra 5 338H, by contrast, is positioned against mobile and server parts such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (0.3 percent delta), Intel Core i7-12800HX (0.3 percent delta), Intel Xeon 6353P (0.4 percent delta), and AMD EPYC 4244P (0.7 percent delta). These rivals have similar average scores, confirming that the Ultra 5 338H is a mid-range mobile part, not a high-end desktop replacement.

For users building a desktop system, the Core 9 273PE is the obvious choice based on the recorded data. It offers a 91.6 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 114.7 percent lead in PassMark integer math, making it far superior for rendering, compilation, and heavy multitasking. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory with ECC make it a flexible and capable desktop platform. The launch MSRP is $549.

For a mobile system, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the only viable option between the two, given its BGA 2540 socket and 25 TDP. Its wins in PassMark single-thread and find prime numbers show that it can handle everyday productivity and light single-thread workloads efficiently. The higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s and the Arc B370 iGPU make it a reasonable choice for thin-and-light laptops where power consumption is critical. It has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 threads. Both have 12 cores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 9 273PE scores 4417 against 2044, a 116.1 percent advantage. The second largest is in PassMark integer math, at 114.7 percent.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 338H win any tests?

A: Yes, it wins 3 tests: PassMark single-thread and singlethread (both 4180 versus 3650, a 12.7 percent advantage) and PassMark find prime numbers (304 versus 203, a 33.2 percent advantage).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s with dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 support. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s with dual-channel LPDDR5X support.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 9 273PE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the process nodes for these chips?

A: The Core 9 273PE uses a 10 nm process, and the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process, both from Intel.