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

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided comparison. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF takes every single win. The Intel Core 9 273PE does not claim victory in any measured workload, whether single-threaded, multi-threaded, or specialized instruction sets.

Looking at the overall averages, the Core Ultra 7 265KF posts an average benchmark score of 71910, while the Core 9 273PE sits at 49845. This places the Ultra 7 in the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 90th percentile for the Core 9. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this gap. The Core 9 273PE sits within 1.1% of the Intel Core i9-13980HX and within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF trades places with the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at a 0.2% delta and the Intel Xeon 6517P at a 0.6% delta.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For any task that leverages multiple cores, the Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 49736 versus 31288 for the Core 9, a 37.1% advantage. For single-threaded work, the Ultra 7 again leads with 7021 in Cinebench R23 single-core against 4417. The Core 9 273PE does not offer any workload category where the data shows a compensating strength. Even in PassMark integer math, where the gap narrows to 2.7%, the Ultra 7 still wins with 143351 against 139410.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel designs. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It is built on the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Arrow Lake-S architecture on a 3 nm node manufactured by TSMC, fitting the Intel Socket 1851.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. This means the Core 9 relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 24 threads from 12 physical cores, while the Ultra 7 runs one thread per core across its 20 physical cores. The Ultra 7's base clock runs at 3.90 GHz and boosts to 5.50 GHz, whereas the Core 9 starts at 2.30 GHz and boosts to 5.70 GHz. The Core 9 has a higher maximum boost frequency, but the Ultra 7 starts from a much higher base.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 9 273PE allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has smaller total L3 but substantially larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations. The Ultra 7 also integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 9's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 7 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 9 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 7 does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is reversed. The Core 9 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). The Core 9 has a locked multiplier; the Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Core 9 uses the part number SA4QD, while the Ultra 7 uses SRQCU. Production status for both is listed as Active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the Core Ultra 7 265KF come in the PassMark extended instructions and prime number tests. In extended instructions, the Ultra 7 scores 54513 against 24630 for the Core 9, a delta of 54.8%. For prime number finding, the Ultra 7 posts 486 versus 203, a 58.2% gap. These are the largest proportional differences in the entire comparison.

Data encryption shows a 52.9% advantage for the Ultra 7, with scores of 48198 against 22719. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 7 by 43.4% (79735 versus 45098), and floating point math shows a 43% lead (189431 versus 107884). Data compression follows at 39.1% (666589 versus 405885).

The Cinebench suite produces a consistent pattern. Every single version, R15, R20, and R23, in both multi-core and single-core modes, shows the Ultra 7 ahead by exactly 37.1%. This uniform delta across all six Cinebench tests suggests a consistent architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. Multi-core scores in R23 reach 49736 for the Ultra 7 versus 31288 for the Core 9. Single-core R23 scores are 7021 and 4417 respectively.

PassMark multithread shows a 37.1% gap as well, with 58518 versus 36810. PassMark physics has a narrower 14.1% margin (3633 versus 3120), and single-thread tests show a 25.9% difference (4928 versus 3650). The closest contest is PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 7 leads by only 2.7% (143351 versus 139410). Even in that near tie, the Ultra 7 still comes out ahead.

The Core 9 273PE's best relative showing is therefore in integer math, where it nearly matches the Ultra 7. But no benchmark in the database shows the Core 9 winning or even tying. The data records 17 wins for the Ultra 7 and 0 for the Core 9.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 has more physical cores, while the Core 9 has more threads due to Hyper-Threading.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 49736, which is 37.1% higher than the Core 9 273PE's 31288. The same 37.1% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Core 9 273PE win any benchmark at all?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Core Ultra 7 265KF winning all 17 recorded benchmarks. The Core 9 273PE has zero wins across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the smallest gap. The Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 143351 versus 139410 for the Core 9 273PE, a difference of only 2.7%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF does not support ECC memory.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core 9 273PE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm TSMC process. Socket types differ: Socket 1700 for the Core 9 and Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7.

Core and thread counts differ as described above: 12 cores and 24 threads for the Core 9, 20 cores and 20 threads for the Ultra 7. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, while boost clocks are 5.70 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. The TDP is 65 watts for the Core 9 and 125 watts for the Ultra 7.

Cache configurations differ in all three levels. L1 is 80 KB per core for the Core 9 and 192 KB per core for the Ultra 7. L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 shared cache is 36 MB for the Core 9 and 30 MB for the Ultra 7.

Memory support shows the Core 9 accepting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 accepts only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7. ECC support is present on the Core 9 and absent on the Ultra 7. PCIe lanes are 16 for the Core 9 and 20 for the Ultra 7, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics are present on the Core 9 (UHD Graphics 730) and absent on the Ultra 7. The multiplier is locked on the Core 9 and unlocked on the Ultra 7. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Ultra 7, at 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm². Release dates differ, with the Core 9 released on 2026-03-08 and the Ultra 7 on 2024-10-23. Part numbers are SA4QD for the Core 9 and SRQCU for the Ultra 7. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 is $549, and for the Ultra 7 it is $379.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms the Intel Core 9 273PE in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 71910 places it 31% above the Core 9's 49845 average. The percentile ranking confirms this: 94th percentile for the Ultra 7 versus 90th for the Core 9.

Users who prioritize raw computing throughput should select the Core Ultra 7 265KF. It delivers higher multi-core scores across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, each by 37.1%. It also leads in PassMark multithread by the same margin. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 7 wins by 25.9% in PassMark single-thread and by 37.1% in Cinebench single-core tests. Specialized workloads such as encryption, extended instructions, and prime number finding show the largest advantages for the Ultra 7, ranging from 52.9% to 58.2%.

The Core 9 273PE does have some distinguishing features. It supports ECC memory, includes integrated graphics, accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, and runs at a lower 65 watt TDP. Its higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz does not translate into benchmark wins, however. The closest it comes to the Ultra 7 is in PassMark integer math, where it trails by only 2.7%.

For systems requiring ECC memory or integrated graphics, the Core 9 273PE is the only option between these two. For all other workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265KF is the faster processor according to every recorded benchmark. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 9 wins on performance. The Ultra 7 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $379 versus $549 for the Core 9, though both are active production parts. The verdict from the measurements is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates this comparison.