Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 uses a core count advantage, whereas the Core 9 relies on Hyper-Threading to reach its thread count.

Q: How do their cache hierarchies compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 features a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is 30 MB. The Core 9 273PE has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and a larger 36 MB shared L3.

Q: What memory standards does each support?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but has a lower memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 7 265's 5.30 GHz. However, the Ultra 7's base clock of 2.40 GHz is slightly above the Core 9's 2.30 GHz base.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles differ?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 9 273PE sits at the 90th percentile. The Ultra 7 also posts a higher average benchmark score of 64640 versus 49845 for the Core 9.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra 7 265 does not. The Ultra 7 also uses a different socket, Intel Socket 1851, compared to the Core 9's Intel Socket 1700.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process node and fabricated by Intel. In contrast, the Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. This process node difference is significant: the Ultra 7 uses a smaller node, which generally indicates a more modern manufacturing approach.

The transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Ultra 7, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 9 lacks those entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for those metrics. The Core Ultra 7 also belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 9 has no series designation listed.

Core configuration differs greatly. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning it uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, indicating no SMT, with each core handling a single thread. The Ultra 7's cache layout is also different, with 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, versus 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 for the Core 9. The shared L3 cache goes the other way: the Core 9 has 36 MB, while the Ultra 7 has 30 MB.

Memory support splits them as well. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, which gives it flexibility for older platforms. The Ultra 7 is DDR5-only, which pairs with its newer socket. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9, but not on the Ultra 7.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core Ultra 7 265 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Both are desktop parts with active production status, but the Ultra 7 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Core 9 launched later on 2026-03-08. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear overall winner: the Core Ultra 7 265 takes 13 of the 17 recorded benchmarks, while the Core 9 273PE wins 4. But the margins tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The Core 9 273PE's biggest victories come in the Cinebench R20 tests. In multi-core, it scores 13140 against the Ultra 7's 6268, a 109.6% advantage. The single-core R20 test shows a similar gap: 1855 versus 884, a 109.8% lead. These are massive swings, but they are surprising given the pattern elsewhere. The Ultra 7 wins the other Cinebench versions by consistent margins: R15 multi-core is 4255 versus 3153 (25.9% lead), R15 single-core is 600 versus 445 (25.8% lead), R23 multi-core is 42216 versus 31288 (25.9% lead), and R23 single-core is 5960 versus 4417 (25.9% lead). The consistency of that 25.9% delta across multiple tests suggests the Ultra 7 has a stable advantage in those workloads.

In Passmark tests, the Ultra 7 dominates most categories. Data compression shows 522983 versus 405885, a 22.4% lead. Data encryption is 40456 versus 22719, a 43.8% lead. Extended instructions: 41478 versus 24630, a 40.6% lead. Find prime numbers: 418 versus 203, a 51.4% lead. Floating point math: 172776 versus 107884, a 37.6% lead. Random string sorting: 63833 versus 45098, a 29.4% lead. Multithread: 49682 versus 36810, a 25.9% lead. Single-thread: 4689 versus 3650, a 22.2% lead.

The Core 9 273PE wins two Passmark tests. Integer math goes its way at 139410 versus 134773, a modest 3.4% lead. Physics also favors it, 3120 versus 2923, a 6.7% lead. These wins are narrow compared to the Ultra 7's margins, which are often in the 20% to 50% range.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split. The Ultra 7 averages 64640, while the Core 9 averages 49845. The nearest rivals in the database for the Ultra 7 include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64438 (0.3% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 (0.7% lower). The Core 9's rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 49796 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49394 (0.9% higher), and the Intel Core i9-13980HX at 50398 (1.1% higher). The Core 9 sits very close to its rivals, while the Ultra 7 is clustered with server-class EPYC parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 as the stronger overall processor. It wins 13 of 17 tests, holds a higher percentile ranking at 93 versus 90, and averages 64640 versus 49845. The margins are often large, with leads of 20% to 50% in Passmark workloads and consistent 25.9% wins in Cinebench R15 and R23. This makes it the default choice for most computing tasks, from content creation to data-heavy workloads.

The Core 9 273PE is not without merit. Its Cinebench R20 results are extraordinary, beating the Ultra 7 by over 109% in both single-core and multi-core. It also takes narrow wins in integer math and physics. Those results suggest it has specific strengths in certain synthetic workloads, but they do not compensate for the broader pattern of losses elsewhere.

The Core 9 also lacks a platform advantage. It uses the older Intel Socket 1700, supports DDR4 and DDR5, and has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851, is DDR5-only, and has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 7's higher memory bandwidth and newer process node (3 nm versus 10 nm) align with its benchmark dominance. For a builder choosing between these two, the data favors the Ultra 7 for general performance, unless the specific Cinebench R20 workload or ECC memory support of the Core 9 is a hard requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 12 | 20 |

| Threads | 24 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 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 | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $394 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SA4QD | SRQCX |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins the majority of workloads. Its 25.9% leads in Cinebench R15 and R23, both single-core and multi-core, make it the better pick for rendering tasks measured by those versions. In Passmark, it dominates data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The margins in encryption (43.8%) and prime numbers (51.4%) are particularly decisive. Its 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and higher memory bandwidth also make it more suitable for systems with multiple high-speed storage devices or memory-intensive applications.

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins in specific niches. Its Cinebench R20 scores, both single-core at 109.8% ahead and multi-core at 109.6% ahead, make it the clear choice for users running that benchmark suite. It also takes integer math and physics in Passmark, though by small margins of 3.4% and 6.7% respectively. ECC memory support is a practical advantage for stability-sensitive workloads, and its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives it compatibility with a wider range of motherboards. The older socket, Intel Socket 1700, may be more common in existing systems, but the data shows the Ultra 7 is the stronger performer in the vast majority of recorded tests.