Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a lopsided contest. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PE takes only 2. The average benchmark score gap is substantial: the Ultra 9 290HX Plus records 79574, versus 49845 for the Core 9 273PE, a difference of roughly 60%. The Ultra 9 also sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 9 273PE sits at the 90th.

The most dramatic victories for the Ultra 9 290HX Plus come in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 scores 5981 against the Core 9's 3153, a delta of -47.3% from the Core 9's perspective. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 21198 versus 13140, a -38% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 39684 against 31288, a -21.2% delta. The PassMark multi-thread test reinforces this pattern: 59439 versus 36810, a -38.1% delta.

The Ultra 9's advantages extend beyond rendering. In PassMark data encryption, it scores 50008 versus 22719, a -54.6% delta, its largest single-test margin. Extended instructions show 51290 versus 24630, a -52% delta. Floating point math delivers 201773 versus 107884, a -46.5% delta. Random string sorting yields 80327 versus 45098, a -43.9% delta. Data compression scores 658724 versus 405885, a -38.4% delta. Even the find prime numbers test, often sensitive to architecture, shows 519 versus 203, a -60.9% delta in favor of the Ultra 9.

The Core 9 273PE's two wins are both in Cinebench single-core tests, and they are striking. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 445 against 340, a +30.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4417 against 2356, a +87.5% delta. These are the only tests where the Core 9 leads, and the R23 margin is enormous. However, this pattern does not hold across all single-threaded workloads. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 wins with 4951 versus 3650, a -26.3% delta. The discrepancy between the Cinebench single-core results and the PassMark single-thread result suggests the Core 9's advantage is specific to certain instruction patterns or clock behavior, not a general single-thread superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark distribution creates a clear use-case split. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus dominates workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, drive its wins in Cinebench multi-core, PassMark multi-thread, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. For video rendering, scientific simulation, data processing, and encryption-heavy tasks, the data indicates the Ultra 9 is the stronger choice by wide margins.

The Intel Core 9 273PE, with 12 cores and 24 threads, still wins in specific single-core rendering scenarios. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score of 445 and R23 single-core score of 4417 are the highest recorded among these two processors. For applications built around Cinebench's single-core rendering path, the Core 9 delivers a measurable advantage. The +87.5% delta in R23 single-core suggests that the Core 9's higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz, versus 5.50 GHz for the Ultra 9, matters significantly in this specific test.

The PassMark physics test shows a closer contest. The Ultra 9 scores 3387 against the Core 9's 3120, a -7.9% delta. This is the narrowest margin among the Ultra 9's wins. Physics simulations often depend on a mix of single-thread latency and multi-thread throughput, and this test reflects that balance. The Ultra 9 still wins, but the Core 9 remains competitive in this niche.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus as the higher-performing processor for almost all measured workloads. Its 24 cores, 3 nm process node, and 17,800 million transistors translate into consistent, large-margin wins across multi-threaded and single-threaded PassMark tests. The 95th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 79574 place it in the same performance tier as the Intel Core i9-14900KF (delta 0.3%) and the Intel Core i9-14900K (delta 0.6%), while slightly ahead of the AMD EPYC 7413 (delta -0.6%) and the Intel Xeon w5-2565X (delta -1.4%).

The Intel Core 9 273PE, with its 90th percentile ranking and average score of 49845, sits near the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (delta 0.1%), the Intel Core i5-14600KF (delta 0.9%), the Intel Core i9-13980HX (delta -1.1%), and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (delta -1.2%). Its two Cinebench single-core wins are notable, but they do not offset the Ultra 9's dominance elsewhere.

For users whose primary workloads are Cinebench R15 or R23 single-core benchmarks, the Core 9 273PE is the recorded choice. For every other measured scenario, including all PassMark tests and all multi-core Cinebench tests, the Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor. The data does not support a general recommendation for the Core 9 273PE outside its narrow single-core Cinebench niche.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has an average score of 49845.

Q: How many head-to-head benchmark wins does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins 15 of the 17 comparisons. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins 2.

Q: What is the largest single-test margin in favor of the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark data encryption, where the Ultra 9 scores 50008 versus 22719 for the Core 9, a -54.6% delta.

Q: In which tests does the Intel Core 9 273PE win?

A: The Core 9 273PE wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (445 versus 340, +30.9%) and Cinebench R23 single-core (4417 versus 2356, +87.5%).

Q: How do the two processors compare on PassMark single-thread?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 4951, while the Core 9 273PE scores 3650, a -26.3% delta in favor of the Ultra 9.

Q: What is the narrowest margin among the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus's wins?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the closest result: 3387 for the Ultra 9 versus 3120 for the Core 9, a -7.9% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core count, process node, and foundry. The Intel Core 9 273PE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. Its codename is Bartlett Lake, and it belongs to the Core 9 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses 24 cores and 24 threads, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its codename is Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, and it belongs to the Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation. The Ultra 9 also has a series designation, Core Ultra Series 2.

Cache structures show notable differences. The Core 9 273PE has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core and an L2 cache of 2 MB per core. The Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an L1 cache of 192 KB per core and an L2 cache of 3 MB per core. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache. The Ultra 9's larger per-core caches likely contribute to its PassMark wins in data compression and extended instructions.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 9: 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are distinct: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segments differ as well: the Core 9 is a desktop part, while the Ultra 9 is a mobile part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.30 GHz for the Core 9 versus 2.70 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks also differ: 5.70 GHz for the Core 9 versus 5.50 GHz for the Ultra 9. TDP values are 65 W for the Core 9 and 55 W for the Ultra 9.

Sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. Process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 9, 3 nm for the Ultra 9. The foundry differs: Intel for the Core 9, TSMC for the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9 has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 9 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9, only DDR5 for the Ultra 9. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9, 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9. PCIe configurations differ: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes for the Core 9, Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes for the Ultra 9. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 9, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the Ultra 9. Market segments differ: Desktop for the Core 9, Mobile for the Ultra 9.

Release dates differ by 8 days: the Core 9 released on 2026-03-08, the Ultra 9 on 2026-03-16. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $549, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. The multiplier is locked for the Core 9, but unlocked for the Ultra 9. Part numbers are distinct: SA4QD for the Core 9, SADSS for the Ultra 9.