Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive but not one-sided. The Intel Core 9 273PE wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H takes 5. The Core 9 273PE dominates in multi-threaded productivity workloads and memory-intensive tasks, whereas the Core Ultra X7 368H wins in encryption, extended instruction handling, prime number calculation, and the PassMark single-thread test.

For users prioritizing sustained multi-core rendering or heavy integer workloads, the Core 9 273PE is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31288 versus 28221 represents a 10.9% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PE scores 139410 against 88083, a 58.3% lead. Data compression also favors the Core 9 273PE significantly, 405885 versus 312927, a 29.7% margin.

The Core Ultra X7 368H counters with specific strengths. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4005 beats 3650, an 8.9% advantage. Prime number finding shows a 36.8% lead, 321 versus 203, and data encryption is 9.9% faster, 25228 versus 22719. Extended instruction throughput also favors the Ultra X7, 25669 versus 24630, a 4% edge. These wins point to workloads that exercise scalar execution, cryptographic operations, or specialized instruction paths rather than broad multi-core parallelism.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect the split: the Core 9 273PE averages 49845 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40518, sitting in the 87th percentile. Both are strong parts, but the Core 9 273PE holds a roughly 23% higher average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PE uses Bartlett Lake silicon on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra X7 368H is a Panther Lake part built on a 3 nm node. The process gap is substantial, but the architectural choices diverge further.

The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 9 273PE still wins most multi-threaded tests, which suggests its per-core performance and memory subsystem carry the day.

Cache layouts differ markedly. The Core 9 273PE uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 368H has larger per-core caches: 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, but only 18 MB shared L3. The smaller L3 on the Ultra X7 likely hurts in cache-sensitive multi-threaded workloads, even though its per-core L1 and L2 are larger.

Memory support splits along market lines. The Core 9 273PE is a desktop part supporting DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile part using LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, roughly 71% higher. ECC is not supported on the Ultra X7. The higher memory bandwidth on the Ultra X7 helps in the encryption and extended instruction tests, where data movement matters.

PCIe lanes also differ. The Core 9 273PE offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X7 provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. The desktop part clearly targets expansion-heavy systems.

The integrated graphics differ as well: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 9 273PE versus Arc B390 on the Core Ultra X7 368H. The Ultra X7 is a mobile processor (BGA 2540 socket, 25 W TDP), while the Core 9 273PE is desktop (Socket 1700, 65 W TDP).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 10.9% to 11% wins for the Core 9 273PE across both single and multi-core tests. R15 multi-core: 3153 versus 2844. R15 single-core: 445 versus 401. R20 multi-core: 13140 versus 11852. R20 single-core: 1855 versus 1673. R23 multi-core: 31288 versus 28221. R23 single-core: 4417 versus 3984. The uniformity of these margins indicates a stable per-clock advantage for the Bartlett Lake part, not a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest gap in the entire comparison. The Core 9 273PE scores 139410 versus 88083, a 58.3% lead. This is the clearest signal that the Core 9 273PE handles general arithmetic and logic-heavy code far better. Data compression follows at 29.7% (405885 versus 312927), and random string sorting shows an 18.4% edge (45098 versus 38093). Floating-point math is closer, 107884 versus 105681, a 2.1% win for the Core 9 273PE.

The Core Ultra X7 368H takes its largest win in prime number finding, 321 versus 203, a 36.8% margin. This test often rewards high single-thread scalar throughput and efficient branch handling. The Ultra X7 also wins data encryption 25228 versus 22719 (9.9%), extended instructions 25669 versus 24630 (4%), and the PassMark single-thread test 4005 versus 3650 (8.9%). The PassMark multithread test still favors the Core 9 273PE, 36810 versus 32956 (11.7%), as does physics, 3120 versus 2857 (9.2%).

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 9 273PE | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch date | 2026-03-08 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | None |

| Part number | SA4QD | SA4R7Q9EJ |

The Core 9 273PE has a higher boost clock by 0.70 GHz, a larger shared L3 by 18 MB, and ECC support. The Ultra X7 has more physical cores (16 versus 12), a newer 3 nm process, more than double the per-core L1, and 71% higher memory bandwidth. Both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which chip wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 5.

Q: Why does the Core 9 273PE win multi-core tests despite having fewer cores?

A: The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores with 24 threads via hyperthreading, while the Ultra X7 has 16 cores but only 16 threads. The Core 9 273PE also has a larger shared L3 cache (36 MB versus 18 MB) and a higher boost clock (5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz). Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 31288 versus 28221, a 10.9% lead.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin in either direction?

A: PassMark integer math. The Core 9 273PE scores 139410 versus 88083, a 58.3% advantage. The largest Ultra X7 win is prime number finding, 321 versus 203, a 36.8% margin.

Q: Where does the Core Ultra X7 368H outperform the Core 9 273PE?

A: It wins in PassMark single-thread (4005 versus 3650, 8.9%), data encryption (25228 versus 22719, 9.9%), extended instructions (25669 versus 24630, 4%), and prime number finding (321 versus 203, 36.8%). These are largely scalar or specialized workloads.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. The Ultra X7 uses LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth but no ECC. Both run dual-channel.

Q: Which part has the higher TDP?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a 65 W TDP. The Core Ultra X7 368H is rated at 25 W. The Ultra X7 is a mobile processor on a BGA 2540 socket, while the Core 9 273PE is a desktop part on Socket 1700.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two clearly by use case. For desktop workloads that stress multi-threaded rendering, integer math, data compression, or physics simulation, the Intel Core 9 273PE is the superior part. Its 10.9% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead, 29.7% data compression lead, and 58.3% integer math lead are decisive. The 36 MB L3 cache and hyperthreading give it a structural advantage in parallel throughput despite fewer physical cores.

For mobile or power-constrained systems where single-thread responsiveness, encryption, and specialized instruction throughput matter more, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has specific wins. Its 8.9% single-thread PassMark lead and 36.8% prime number margin show it handles scalar workloads efficiently. The 3 nm process and 25 W TDP make it a far more power-efficient part, and its 153.6 GB/s LPDDR5X bandwidth exceeds the desktop chip's memory throughput by 71%. The Arc B390 integrated graphics also outclass the UHD Graphics 730 on paper.

The average benchmark scores tell the overall story: the Core 9 273PE sits at 49845 in the 90th percentile, while the Ultra X7 368H averages 40518 in the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 273PE include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.9% behind), Intel Core i9-13980HX (1.1% ahead), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (1.2% ahead). The Ultra X7 368H sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Core 5 223PE, AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, and Intel Xeon 6507P. Neither chip strays far from its immediate competitive cluster, but the Core 9 273PE occupies a higher absolute tier.

A desktop builder who values multi-core rendering and integer throughput should select the Core 9 273PE. A mobile system designer who needs higher memory bandwidth, lower power draw, and competitive scalar performance should select the Core Ultra X7 368H. The benchmark data does not support a single universal winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.