Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in raw performance, but the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H secures several notable victories in specialized workloads. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Core 9 273PE takes 12 wins, while the Core Ultra 7 366H claims 5.

The most decisive victory for the Core 9 273PE comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 139,410 against the Ultra 7 366H's 83,695, a 66.6% advantage. This is the largest single-test gap in the entire comparison. Data compression also heavily favors the desktop chip, with 405,885 versus 327,455, a 24% edge. Multithreaded performance shows a 10.1% lead for the Core 9 273PE (36,810 vs. 33,429), and random string sorting goes its way by 13.3% (45,098 vs. 39,814).

The Cinebench suite delivers a consistent pattern: across all six tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), the Core 9 273PE wins by exactly 9.9% in each case. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 31,288 for the Core 9 273PE versus 28,477 for the Ultra 7 366H, while R23 single-core shows 4,417 versus 4,020. This uniform 9.9% delta across the entire Cinebench lineup suggests a systematic clock-speed or IPC advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The Core Ultra 7 366H counters with its own set of wins. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 37.7% victory for the mobile chip (326 vs. 203), the largest margin in either direction. Data encryption favors the Ultra 7 366H by 12.1% (25,845 vs. 22,719), and extended instructions go its way by 8.4% (26,901 vs. 24,630). PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests both record 4,043 for the Ultra 7 366H versus 3,650 for the Core 9 273PE, a 9.7% lead. Floating-point math is close, with the Core 9 273PE ahead by only 4.1% (107,884 vs. 103,615).

The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PE is 49,845, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263, which puts it in the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 273PE include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (average score 49,796, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (49,394, 0.9% behind), while the Intel Core i9-13980HX (50,398) sits 1.1% ahead. For the Ultra 7 366H, the closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with an average score of 41,215 (0.1% behind), followed by the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41,376 (0.3% ahead).

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two processors maps cleanly onto their intended usage scenarios. The Core 9 273PE, a desktop part with a 65 TDP, dominates heavily threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. Its 66.6% margin in integer math and 24% edge in data compression indicate strong performance for compile workloads, financial modeling, or any task that processes large amounts of structured data. The 10.1% multithread lead and the consistent 9.9% Cinebench advantage reinforce its suitability for rendering, video encoding, and batch processing.

The Ultra 7 366H, a mobile chip with a 25 TDP, wins in tasks that appear to depend on instruction-level specialization or newer architectural features. Prime number finding, which often stresses the integer execution pipeline in specific patterns, shows a 37.7% advantage. Data encryption at 12.1% and extended instructions at 8.4% suggest that the Panther Lake architecture includes enhanced cryptographic and SIMD capabilities. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,043 versus 3,650 shows that in certain short-burst single-threaded workloads, the mobile chip actually outpaces the desktop part despite a lower boost clock.

The Core 9 273PE also wins physics simulation by 8.3% (3,120 vs. 2,880), which typically correlates with gaming physics calculations. Floating-point math goes to the desktop chip by a narrow 4.1% margin, indicating that the Ultra 7 366H's architectural efficiency nearly closes the gap in FP-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines and manufacturing generations. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel. The process node difference is substantial, with the Ultra 7 366H using a significantly more advanced manufacturing technology.

Core and thread configurations differ meaningfully. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 9 273PE still wins most multi-threaded tests due to its higher clock speeds and thread count.

Clock speeds favor the desktop part. The Core 9 273PE has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the Ultra 7 366H operates at 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The 0.90 GHz boost clock difference gives the Core 9 273PE a substantial frequency advantage in burst workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PE uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 366H has larger per-core caches at 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, but a smaller 18 MB of shared L3. The desktop chip's 36 MB L3 is double the mobile part's capacity, which helps in workloads with large working sets.

Memory support varies. The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, but no ECC. The mobile chip has higher memory bandwidth despite its lower TDP.

PCIe connectivity shows a difference in lane allocation. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part offers more PCIe lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Socket types separate the platforms: the Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540, confirming the desktop versus mobile split. The Core 9 273PE has a launch MSRP of $549. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has an average benchmark score of 49,845, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41,263. The desktop chip also holds a higher percentile ranking at 90th versus 87th among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How do the Cinebench scores compare between the two?

A: The Core 9 273PE wins all six Cinebench tests by exactly 9.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 31,288 versus 28,477, and in R23 single-core, it scores 4,417 versus 4,020.

Q: Where does the Core Ultra 7 366H outperform the Core 9 273PE?

A: The Ultra 7 366H wins in PassMark find prime numbers (326 vs. 203, a 37.7% lead), data encryption (25,845 vs. 22,719), extended instructions (26,901 vs. 24,630), and single-thread tests (4,043 vs. 3,650).

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

A: The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What process nodes are used by each chip?

A: The Core 9 273PE uses a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Core 9 273PE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a straightforward performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PE is the faster processor in the majority of tests, winning 12 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its advantages in integer math (66.6%), data compression (24%), and the entire Cinebench suite (9.9% across all six tests) make it the stronger choice for desktop workloads that demand sustained multi-threaded throughput. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with a 5.70 GHz boost clock delivers results that place it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 49,845.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, despite its lower overall average score of 41,263, demonstrates specific strengths that should not be overlooked. Its wins in prime number finding (37.7%), data encryption (12.1%), and extended instructions (8.4%) indicate a newer 3 nm architecture with specialized execution capabilities. The 16-core, 16-thread design with larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, combined with 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, makes it a capable mobile processor for encryption-heavy or instruction-specialized tasks. Its 4,043 PassMark single-thread score even exceeds the desktop part's 3,650.

For users on a desktop platform requiring maximum throughput in rendering, compilation, or data-heavy workloads, the Core 9 273PE is the data-backed choice. For mobile users whose workloads involve cryptography, extended instruction sets, or prime-number computations, the Ultra 7 366H offers measurable advantages despite its lower overall score. The 9.9% Cinebench deficit for the mobile chip, however, means it trails in the most commonly cited multi-core and single-core rendering metrics. The data does not support recommending the Ultra 7 366H for general-purpose performance leadership, but it does establish the chip as a specialized alternative with distinct architectural merits.