Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear overall picture: the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PE takes 3. But the size and direction of those wins reveal a more nuanced story than the raw count suggests.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Ultra X9 378H holds a consistent advantage across every render test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 3281 against 3153, a 3.9% lead. The single-core R15 result shows 462 versus 445, a 3.7% edge. Moving to R20, the multicore gap is again 3.9% (13672 versus 13140), while single-core shows 1929 against 1855, a 3.8% difference. The R23 tests repeat the pattern: multicore 32553 versus 31288 (3.9% ahead), single-core 4595 versus 4417 (3.9% ahead). These are consistent, moderate margins, not dramatic blowouts.

The Passmark suite shows where each processor has its distinct strengths. The Ultra X9 378H dominates in several specialized workloads. Data encryption shows the largest single gap: 29840 versus 22719, a 23.9% advantage. Extended instructions follow closely, with 31315 against 24630, a 21.3% lead. The find prime numbers test is the most lopsided of all, 357 versus 203, a 43.1% difference. Floating point math also favors the Ultra X9, 114500 against 107884 (5.8% ahead), as does the physics test, 3404 versus 3120 (8.3% ahead). The single-thread Passmark score is notably one-sided too: 4453 versus 3650, an 18% gap.

The Core 9 273PE fights back in three specific areas. Integer math is its biggest win by far: 139410 versus 92603, a dominant 50.5% margin. Data compression shows a 5% advantage, 405885 against 386591. Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the Core 9 ahead by just 1%, 45098 versus 44648. These wins are concentrated and meaningful, but they do not offset the breadth of the Ultra X9's victories.

The multithread Passmark score favors the Ultra X9 378H, 38298 versus 36810, a 3.9% margin that mirrors the Cinebench multicore results. Across all tests, the average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Core 9 273PE sits at 49845, while the Ultra X9 378H lands at 47468. The percentile rankings are close, 90th versus 89th, which aligns with the rival comparisons: the Core 9's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, is just 0.1% behind, while the Ultra X9's closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, is 0.1% ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to two processors with different intended roles. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H delivers better results in the majority of measured workloads, particularly in rendering, encryption, extended instruction sets, prime number computation, and single-thread performance. Its 14 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests establish it as the stronger all-around performer in this comparison.

The Intel Core 9 273PE, however, shows a commanding lead in integer math, a 50.5% margin that is the largest single-test difference in either direction. It also wins in data compression and barely edges out the Ultra X9 in random string sorting. For workloads that depend heavily on integer arithmetic, the Core 9 is clearly the better choice.

The Ultra X9's consistency across Cinebench and Passmark multithread tests suggests it handles general multi-core productivity well. Its single-thread advantage, 18% in Passmark and roughly 3.8% in Cinebench, indicates stronger per-core efficiency. The Core 9's higher average benchmark score, 49845 versus 47468, reflects its specific strengths, even though it loses more tests.

Users whose software relies on integer-heavy calculations should favor the Core 9 273PE. Those with mixed workloads, especially involving encryption, rendering, or floating-point operations, will find the Ultra X9 378H more capable based on the recorded measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and manufacturing processes. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node. The Ultra X9 378H belongs to the Panther Lake family, specifically Panther Lake-H, and uses a 3 nm node. This process difference likely contributes to the Ultra X9's efficiency and per-core performance advantages.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra X9 still wins most multicore tests, which points to higher per-core throughput.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X9 378H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X9 has twice the L1 capacity per core and 25% more L2 per core, while the Core 9 has double the shared L3.

Memory support separates them clearly. The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and a measured bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, a 71.4% higher figure. The Ultra X9 also lacks ECC memory support, while the Core 9 includes it.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The Core 9 273PE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra X9 378H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics are different: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra X9 features Arc B390. The Core 9 targets the desktop market segment with an Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X9 is a mobile part using Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the Core 9 273PE is 2.30 GHz, while the Ultra X9 378H starts at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order: the Core 9 reaches 5.70 GHz, while the Ultra X9 tops out at 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs sharply, with the Core 9 rated at 65 and the Ultra X9 at 25, reflecting the mobile versus desktop positioning.

Release dates are close but distinct. The Core 9 273PE launched on 2026-03-08, while the Ultra X9 378H arrived on 2026-04-03. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $549, while the Ultra X9 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core 9's part number is SA4QD, while the Ultra X9's is listed as unknown.

Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra X9 at 153.6 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 9 but absent on the Ultra X9. PCIe lane counts favor the Core 9, 16 lanes versus 4, both at Gen 5. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 9 273PE wins 3.

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

A: The Core 9 273PE leads in Passmark integer math by 50.5%, scoring 139410 versus 92603. The Ultra X9 378H's largest win is in Passmark find prime numbers, 43.1% ahead with 357 versus 203.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra X9 378H scores 32553, which is 3.9% higher than the Core 9 273PE's 31288.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra X9 378H has 153.6 GB/s bandwidth with LPDDR5X support. The Core 9 273PE has 89.6 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core 9 273PE has an average benchmark score of 49845, compared to 47468 for the Ultra X9 378H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in all six Cinebench tests, both multicore and single-core across R15, R20, and R23, with margins between 3.7% and 3.9%. It also wins Passmark data encryption by 23.9%, extended instructions by 21.3%, find prime numbers by 43.1%, floating point math by 5.8%, multithread by 3.9%, physics by 8.3%, and single-thread by 18%. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering workloads, encryption tasks, scientific computing with floating-point operations, and any application benefiting from strong single-core performance.

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins Passmark integer math by a massive 50.5%, data compression by 5%, and random string sorting by 1%. Its integer math score of 139410 is the highest single result among all recorded tests for either processor. This positions it as the better option for integer-heavy computational tasks, database-style data compression workloads, and sorting operations where its specific architecture excels.

The overall benchmark averages tell a complementary story. The Core 9 273PE's 49845 average sits slightly above the Ultra X9's 47468, despite losing more individual tests. This indicates the Core 9's wins are in tests that carry more weight in the average calculation. The nearest rival data supports this split: the Core 9 trades within 1.2% of processors like the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and Intel Core i5-14600KF, while the Ultra X9 stays within 0.6% of parts like the Intel Core i7-13700KF and Intel Core i9-12900F. Each processor occupies a distinct performance niche, and the recorded data shows which workloads favor which design.