Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark results show an overwhelmingly one-sided comparison between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V takes only 2. The margins, however, vary dramatically across workloads, and the two victories for the Ultra 9 are concentrated in one specific area.

Starting with the multi-threaded Cinebench results, the Core 9 273PE establishes massive leads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 scores 31,288 against the Ultra 9's 10,178, a 207.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in any benchmark category. The R20 multi-core test shows a similarly lopsided result: 13,140 versus 7,069, a difference of 85.9%. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the pattern with 3,153 versus 1,583, a 99.2% gap. These results indicate that the Core 9 273PE delivers roughly double the multi-threaded rendering performance of the Ultra 9 288V in the R15 and R20 tests, and over three times the performance in the R23 test.

Single-core Cinebench results also favor the Core 9, though by smaller margins. In R23 single-core, the Core 9 scores 4,417 compared to the Ultra 9's 1,950, a 126.5% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 1,855 versus 997, a difference of 86.1%. R15 single-core yields 445 versus 301.5, a 47.6% advantage. These numbers confirm that the Core 9's architectural implementation delivers substantially higher single-thread performance in Cinebench workloads.

The PassMark suite tells a similar story across most tests. Integer math shows the Core 9 at 139,410 versus the Ultra 9's 44,019, a staggering 216.7% difference. Floating point math follows with 107,884 versus 59,536, an 81.2% gap. Random string sorting shows 45,098 versus 22,622, a 99.4% difference. Data compression scores 405,885 against 186,521, a 117.6% lead. Data encryption records 22,719 versus 14,141, a 60.7% advantage. Extended instructions register 24,630 versus 15,613, a 57.8% difference. The physics test shows 3,120 versus 1,637, a 90.6% lead. Multithread performance records 36,810 versus 19,810, an 85.8% difference.

The closest contest in the entire comparison is the PassMark find prime numbers test. Here the Core 9 scores 203 against the Ultra 9's 195, a narrow 4.1% margin. This near-tie suggests that prime number calculation, which often depends heavily on specific instruction efficiency rather than raw core count, is the only workload where the two processors approach parity.

The Ultra 9 288V claims both of its wins in the PassMark single-thread test, which is recorded twice in the data under slightly different test names. In both instances, the Ultra 9 scores 4,274 against the Core 9's 3,650, a 14.6% advantage. This is the only category where the Ultra 9 demonstrates superiority, and it is notable that the single-thread PassMark result contradicts the Cinebench single-core results, where the Core 9 leads by substantial margins. The discrepancy likely reflects different measurement methodologies within the two benchmark suites.

Overall, the average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PE is 49,845, placing it in the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 9 288V averages 23,219, which puts it in the 76th percentile. The Core 9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at an average score of 49,796 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49,394 (0.9% behind), the Intel Core i9-13980HX at 50,398 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 at 50,448 (1.2% ahead). Meanwhile, the Ultra 9's closest competitors are the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23,254 (0.2% ahead), the AMD EPYC 4124P at 23,167 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H at 23,277 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V at 23,297 (0.3% ahead).

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates in nearly every measured workload, with particularly strong results in multi-threaded rendering, integer math, and data compression. For users whose workloads involve Cinebench-style rendering, heavy computational math, encryption, or compression tasks, the Core 9 273PE is the clear choice based on recorded measurements.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V, however, claims a meaningful win in PassMark single-thread performance, scoring 14.6% higher than the Core 9. This suggests that for workloads that rely primarily on single-threaded PassMark-style operations, the Ultra 9 may offer better responsiveness. The Ultra 9 also consumes significantly less power, with a TDP of 30 watts compared to the Core 9's 65 watts, and belongs to the mobile market segment rather than desktop.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Core 9 sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 sits at the 76th percentile. Both are capable processors, but the Core 9 operates in a higher performance tier overall. The average benchmark score difference of 26,626 points (49,845 versus 23,219) indicates that the Core 9 is roughly twice as fast on average across the recorded benchmark suite.

Architecture Differences

The two processors employ fundamentally different designs. The Intel Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process node difference is significant, as the 3 nm node allows for denser transistor packing and potentially better power efficiency per operation, though the recorded benchmarks show the larger, higher-power desktop chip winning most performance comparisons.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9's thread count indicates simultaneous multithreading support, while the Ultra 9 does not appear to offer this feature. The Core 9's higher thread count directly contributes to its massive multi-threaded benchmark advantages.

Cache configurations also diverge. The Core 9 273PE features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. While the Ultra 9 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, the Core 9's three times larger L3 cache likely contributes to its superior performance in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Socket types differ completely. The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Ultra 9 288V uses Intel BGA 2833, a ball-grid array typically soldered directly to mobile motherboards. This means the Core 9 is designed for desktop systems with replaceable processors, while the Ultra 9 is intended for mobile devices where the CPU is permanently attached.

Specification Differences

The Core 9 273PE operates with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Ultra 9 288V has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Core 9's higher boost clock helps explain its single-core Cinebench victories despite the Ultra 9's higher base frequency.

Thermal design power differs considerably. The Core 9 273PE has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 9 288V has a TDP of 30 watts. This makes the Ultra 9 more than twice as power-efficient on paper, which is consistent with its mobile market positioning.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X memory, also in dual-channel configuration, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. The Ultra 9 does not support ECC memory. The higher memory bandwidth of the Ultra 9 is notable, though it does not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded tests.

PCI Express connectivity also differs. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The Core 9's 16 lanes support more expansive GPU and storage configurations.

Integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 9 273PE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 288V includes Arc 140V. The Arc 140V represents a more modern integrated graphics solution, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database for direct comparison.

The Core 9 273PE has a launch MSRP of $549. The Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core 9's release date is recorded as 2026-03-08, while the Ultra 9's release date is 2024-09-23, indicating the Ultra 9 launched earlier. Both processors have active production status and locked multipliers.

Market segments differ, with the Core 9 273PE classified as a desktop processor and the Ultra 9 288V classified as a mobile processor. This distinction aligns with their socket types, TDPs, and memory support profiles.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9's doubled thread count indicates support for simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest recorded difference is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PE scores 31,288 versus the Ultra 9 288V's 10,178, a 207.4% advantage. PassMark integer math shows a similar 216.7% gap.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 288V win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Ultra 9 288V wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4,274 compared to the Core 9's 3,650, a 14.6% advantage. This result appears twice in the data under two slightly different test names.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Ultra 9 288V has a TDP of 30 watts. The Ultra 9 requires less than half the thermal design power of the Core 9.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Ultra 9 288V supports LPDDR5X memory with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock speed?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the Ultra 9 288V has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ultra 9 has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus the Core 9's 2.30 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins in 15 of 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, establishing clear dominance in multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads. Its largest advantages appear in Cinebench R23 multi-core (207.4% ahead), PassMark integer math (216.7% ahead), and PassMark data compression (117.6% ahead). These results make the Core 9 the preferred choice for rendering, scientific computing, compression tasks, encryption workloads, and general desktop productivity where the 65-watt TDP is acceptable.

The Core 9 also wins all three Cinebench single-core tests, with margins ranging from 47.6% in R15 to 126.5% in R23. This suggests that even for lightly threaded applications, the Core 9 delivers superior performance in Cinebench-style workloads. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with 36 MB of L3 cache provides substantial headroom for heavily parallel tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins only the PassMark single-thread test, with a 14.6% margin over the Core 9. This specific result indicates that for PassMark-style single-thread operations, the Ultra 9 offers better performance. The Ultra 9's higher base clock of 3.30 GHz, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and 136.5 GB/s memory bandwidth may contribute to this win. The Ultra 9's 30-watt TDP also makes it suitable for mobile devices where power consumption is a primary concern.

The Ultra 9 comes closest to the Core 9 in the PassMark find prime numbers test, trailing by only 4.1%. This near-parity suggests that for prime number calculation, the two processors are effectively equivalent, and other factors such as power consumption or platform requirements may be more important deciding factors.

For mobile users who prioritize single-thread PassMark performance and power efficiency, the Ultra 9 288V presents a compelling option. For desktop users who require maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Core 9 273PE is the clear winner based on the recorded benchmark data. The two processors serve different market segments, and the benchmark results align with those designations.