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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE scores 31,288 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H scores 19,940. That gives the Core 9 273PE a 56.9% advantage in that test.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded PassMark testing?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins PassMark single-thread with a score of 4,334 versus 3,650 for the Intel Core 9 273PE, a 15.8% margin in favor of the Ultra 7.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Core 9 273PE has more threads due to Hyper-Threading support.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 9 273PE uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The 3 nm node is significantly smaller.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE includes UHD Graphics 730, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H includes Arc Graphics 140T. The Arc solution is the higher-tier integrated GPU in this comparison.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H boosts to 5.30 GHz. The Core 9 273PE holds a 0.40 GHz advantage at peak frequency.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture and belongs to the Core 9 generation. It is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process and is designed for the desktop segment, fitting into Intel Socket 1700. The chip integrates 12 cores with 24 threads, and its cache layout consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is a mobile processor built on TSMC's 3 nm process and mounted on Intel BGA 2049. This chip has 16 cores but only 16 threads, indicating no SMT support. Its cache includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

The process node difference is notable: 3 nm versus 10 nm. That gives the Ultra 7 265H a substantial density and efficiency advantage on paper, though the benchmark data shows a more nuanced performance picture. The Core 9 273PE compensates with higher clock speeds, a 2.30 GHz base versus 2.20 GHz, and a 5.70 GHz boost versus 5.30 GHz.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the Ultra 7 265H has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 7 265H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The desktop part has double the CPU-attached PCIe lanes.

The TDP ratings show a clear split: 65 watts for the Core 9 273PE versus 28 watts for the Ultra 7 265H. That reflects the desktop versus mobile positioning. The Core 9 273PE also carries a launch MSRP of $549, while the Ultra 7 265H does not have a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates multi-threaded workloads that scale with thread count and raw core throughput. It wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its largest victories come in Cinebench R23 multi-core (56.9% ahead), PassMark integer math (63.1% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core (112.4% ahead). It also leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 45%, PassMark data compression by 21.3%, PassMark physics by 24.9%, and PassMark multithread by 8.2%.

The Core 9 273PE is the stronger choice for rendering, scientific computing, and heavily threaded applications. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 13,140 versus 12,131 shows an 8.3% lead, and its PassMark random string sorting result of 45,098 versus 40,742 gives a 10.7% edge. The desktop chip also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 3,153 versus 2,989, a 5.5% margin.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins 6 of the 17 comparisons, and its victories cluster in specific instruction-level and memory-sensitive tasks. It leads in PassMark find prime numbers by 39.4% (335 versus 203), PassMark data encryption by 12.6% (26,005 versus 22,719), and PassMark extended instructions by 8.1% (26,805 versus 24,630). It also wins PassMark floating point math by 1.1% and PassMark single-thread by 15.8% (4,334 versus 3,650).

The Ultra 7 265H suits workloads that depend on single-thread efficiency, cryptographic operations, and specialized instruction throughput. Its higher L1 cache per core (192 KB versus 80 KB) and larger L2 per core (3 MB versus 2 MB) likely contribute to those wins. The 3 nm process and newer architecture also give it a per-watt advantage, relevant for mobile or thermally constrained systems.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 80 KB | 192 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 2 MB | 3 MB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 36 MB | 24 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SA4QD | SRQAQ |

The Core 9 273PE has fewer cores but more threads, a higher base and boost clock, and triple the TDP. The Ultra 7 265H has more cores, more L1 and L2 per core, a smaller process node, and higher memory bandwidth. The L3 cache is larger on the Core 9 273PE (36 MB versus 24 MB).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-benchmark gap belongs to the Intel Core 9 273PE in Cinebench R23 single-core. It scores 4,417 versus 2,080 for the Ultra 7 265H, a 112.4% advantage. That is an outlier result, but it aligns with the Core 9 273PE's higher boost clock and desktop power envelope.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PE scores 31,288 versus 19,940, a 56.9% lead. This is the second-largest margin in the comparison and reflects the desktop chip's ability to sustain high clocks across 24 threads. The Ultra 7 265H, with 16 threads and a 28-watt TDP, cannot match that sustained throughput.

PassMark integer math also favors the Core 9 273PE heavily: 139,410 versus 85,479, a 63.1% edge. That workload rewards the combination of high clock speeds and SMT. The Core 9 273PE also wins PassMark physics by 24.9% (3,120 versus 2,497) and PassMark data compression by 21.3% (405,885 versus 334,711).

The Ultra 7 265H's best win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 335 versus 203, a 39.4% advantage. This test often responds to cache hierarchy and instruction efficiency, areas where the 3 nm Arrow Lake design excels. The Ultra 7 265H also wins PassMark data encryption by 12.6% (26,005 versus 22,719) and PassMark extended instructions by 8.1% (26,805 versus 24,630).

In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 7 265H leads with 4,334 versus 3,650, a 15.8% margin. This is notable because the Core 9 273PE wins Cinebench single-core tests by wide margins. The PassMark single-thread test measures a different mix of operations, and the Ultra 7 265H's per-core resources give it the edge there.

The remaining wins are closer. PassMark floating point math goes to the Ultra 7 265H by 1.1% (109,123 versus 107,884). Cinebench R15 multi-core goes to the Core 9 273PE by 5.5% (3,153 versus 2,989). Cinebench R20 multi-core goes to the Core 9 273PE by 8.3% (13,140 versus 12,131). Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the Core 9 273PE by 8.4% (1,855 versus 1,712). PassMark multithread goes to the Core 9 273PE by 8.2% (36,810 versus 34,027). PassMark random string sorting goes to the Core 9 273PE by 10.7% (45,098 versus 40,742).

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall split. The Core 9 273PE averages 49,845 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 7 265H averages 41,621, placing it at the 88th percentile. The closest rivals for the Core 9 273PE are the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.9% behind), Intel Core i9-13980HX (1.1% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (1.2% behind). The closest rivals for the Ultra 7 265H are the Intel Core 7 251TE (0.1% behind), Intel Core i7-14650HX (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i7-12850HX (0.4% behind), and AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (0.6% ahead).

The recorded data indicates that the Core 9 273PE is the stronger overall performer, with 11 wins versus 6 for the Ultra 7 265H. But the Ultra 7 265H delivers those 6 wins in areas that matter for specific mobile and efficiency-oriented tasks, and it does so at a fraction of the TDP. The architecture difference, 10 nm desktop versus 3 nm mobile, explains much of the behavioral split. The Core 9 273PE uses raw clocks and thread count; the Ultra 7 265H uses cache density and architectural efficiency.