Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 9 273PE. The closest margin appears in integer math, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 164,869 against the 273PE's 139,410, a 15.4% advantage. The largest gaps are in prime number finding and data encryption, where the Ultra 9 285 leads by 55.8% and 51.6% respectively.

Cinebench results follow a consistent pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in multicore and singlecore variants), the Ultra 9 285 holds a 36.1% lead over the 273PE in every single test. For example, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 31,288 for the 273PE. In singlecore R23, the margin is 6,909 versus 4,417. This uniformity across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads indicates the advantage is not simply a core count effect but reflects a broader architectural superiority.

PassMark tests reveal a varied picture. Data compression shows the Ultra 9 285 at 602,121 versus 405,885, a 32.6% gap. Floating point math favors the Ultra 9 285 by 44.7% (194,988 versus 107,884). Extended instructions show a 45.7% difference (45,357 versus 24,630). Random string sorting gives the Ultra 9 285 a 38.8% edge (73,651 versus 45,098). Multithread performance sits 35% higher for the Ultra 9 285 (56,602 versus 36,810). The physics test is the second-closest result, with the Ultra 9 285 ahead by 13.3% (3,598 versus 3,120).

Single-threaded PassMark results show a 25.2% advantage for the Ultra 9 285 (4,881 versus 3,650). This aligns with the Cinebench singlecore deltas, confirming that the Ultra 9 285 delivers substantially better per-thread performance, not just higher aggregate throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with the Arrow Lake architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The Ultra 9 285's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm², while the 273PE has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. Both have identical thread counts, meaning the Ultra 9 285 does not use simultaneous multithreading. The 273PE delivers its 24 threads from 12 physical cores, each presumably offering two threads. The Ultra 9 285's 24 threads come from 24 physical cores, each running a single thread.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 273PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and the same 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 thus carries more than double the L1 per core and 50% more L2 per core.

Clock speeds are close but favor the 273PE on boost. The 273PE has a 2.30 GHz base clock and a 5.70 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 9 285 has a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 5.60 GHz boost clock. Despite a slightly lower boost ceiling, the Ultra 9 285 dominates in every benchmark, indicating that architectural efficiency and the 3 nm process outweigh the raw clock advantage of the 273PE.

Memory support differs as well. The 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Ultra 9 285 has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the 273PE. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity favors the Ultra 9 285. The 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Sockets are incompatible. The 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 273PE has a part number of SA4QD, and the Ultra 9 285 has a part number of SRQD4. The 273PE's release date is recorded as 2026-03-08, while the Ultra 9 285's release date is 2024-12-31. The 273PE's launch MSRP is $549, and the Ultra 9 285's launch MSRP is $579.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not provide any benchmark where the Intel Core 9 273PE wins. Across all 17 recorded tests, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 takes every single victory. The 273PE's closest results come in integer math (15.4% behind) and physics (13.3% behind), but even these are decisive wins for the Ultra 9 285.

For workloads that stress integer operations, such as general productivity applications or database processing, the Ultra 9 285 still holds a comfortable lead. The physics test, which can reflect certain simulation or gaming workloads, also clearly favors the Ultra 9 285. Encryption and prime number finding, tasks that often benefit from both wide execution resources and strong single-thread performance, show the largest gaps in favor of the Ultra 9 285.

The 273PE's only practical advantages appear outside raw benchmark performance. It supports DDR4 memory, which could allow reuse of existing memory kits, and it fits the older Socket 1700 platform. However, the benchmark data shows no computational scenario where the 273PE comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores. Both have 24 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Ultra 9 285 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 31,288 for the 273PE, a 36.1% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the 273PE has 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the Ultra 9 285's 5.60 GHz boost clock.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | (not recorded) | Arrow Lake |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Transistors | (not recorded) | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | (not recorded) | 243 mm² |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $579 |

| Part Number | SA4QD | SRQD4 |

The Verdict

The data supports only one choice for performance. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every benchmark in the database, with margins ranging from 13.3% in physics to 55.8% in prime number finding. Its average benchmark score of 75,488 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 273PE's average score of 49,845 puts it in the 90th percentile.

The Ultra 9 285's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC 8224P (75,582 average score, 0.1% higher), AMD EPYC 4545P (75,373, 0.2% lower), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (75,716, 0.3% lower), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75,738, 0.3% lower). The 273PE's nearest rivals include AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (49,796, 0.1% higher), Intel Core i5-14600KF (49,394, 0.9% lower), Intel Core i9-13980HX (50,398, 1.1% higher), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (50,448, 1.2% higher).

The 273PE is positioned against lower-tier rivals, and the Ultra 9 285 competes with server-class EPYC parts. The 36.1% Cinebench gap between the two Intel processors is consistent across single and multi-threaded tests, indicating a fundamental per-thread performance difference that core count alone does not explain. The 3 nm TSMC process, larger per-core caches, and higher memory bandwidth of the Ultra 9 285 all contribute to its dominance.

For a builder choosing between these two, the Ultra 9 285 delivers substantially higher performance in every measured workload. The 273PE offers DDR4 compatibility and the older Socket 1700 platform, but the benchmark results show no computational scenario where it matches the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 9 285's 24 physical cores, each running a single thread, appear to execute instructions more efficiently than the 273PE's 12 cores with hyperthreading. The lower boost clock of the Ultra 9 285 (5.60 GHz versus 5.70 GHz) does not prevent it from winning every single-threaded test. The data is unambiguous: the Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor.