Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two processors, with the Intel Core 9 273PE winning 9 of 17 head-to-head tests and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H winning 8. The margins, however, are not symmetrical. The Core 9 273PE dominates in several multi-threaded and single-threaded CPU workloads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H counters with decisive wins in specific instruction-level and memory-sensitive tasks.

The largest single victory belongs to the Core 9 273PE in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4417 against 2200.5, a 100.7% advantage. This is an extraordinary margin, more than doubling the output of the Core Ultra X9 388H in that test. The R23 multi-core result also favors the Core 9 273PE heavily, with a score of 31288 versus 18911, a 65.4% lead. These two results alone establish the Core 9 273PE as the superior choice for rendering and heavily threaded workloads that scale with sustained clock speed.

Cinebench R15 tells a similar story but with smaller gaps. In R15 multi-core, the Core 9 273PE scores 3153 against 2955, a 6.7% win. In R15 single-core, the margin is 445 versus 309.5, a 43.8% advantage for the Core 9 273PE. The R20 results are nearly identical between the two chips, with the Core 9 273PE edging ahead by just 0.3% in both multi-core (13140 vs 13101) and single-core (1855 vs 1849).

The Core Ultra X9 388H fights back in PassMark workloads. Its most striking victory is in the find prime numbers test, scoring 358 against 203, a 43.3% lead for the Ultra X9. Data encryption also favors the Ultra X9, with 28490 versus 22719, a 20.3% advantage. Extended instructions show a 17.7% win for the Ultra X9 (29943 vs 24630). Floating point math goes to the Ultra X9 by a narrower 4.1% margin (112550 vs 107884). Physics testing gives the Ultra X9 a 3.3% edge (3226 vs 3120). The PassMark single-thread test also favors the Ultra X9, scoring 4280 against 3650, a 14.7% lead.

The Core 9 273PE claims the remaining wins with substantial margins in integer math, scoring 139410 versus 90882, a 53.4% advantage. Data compression goes to the Core 9 273PE by 12.2% (405885 vs 361763). Random string sorting is close, with the Core 9 273PE ahead by 2.5% (45098 vs 44010). The multithread PassMark test is essentially a tie, with the Ultra X9 scoring 36811 and the Core 9 273PE scoring 36810, a delta of 0%.

Overall average benchmark scores place the Core 9 273PE at 49845, which is 11.1% higher than the Ultra X9's 44466. This places the Core 9 273PE in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra X9 sits in the 88th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PE is the clear winner for rendering and content creation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 31288 is 65.4% ahead of the Ultra X9, and the R15 multi-core result confirms this pattern with a 6.7% lead. The R23 single-core score of 4417, which doubles the Ultra X9's output, indicates that the Core 9 273PE also excels in lightly threaded applications such as legacy software, spreadsheet calculations, and many productivity tools that rely on a single fast core.

Integer math is another stronghold for the Core 9 273PE. Its score of 139410 is 53.4% higher than the Ultra X9's 90882. This suggests an advantage in database operations, financial modeling, and scientific computing that relies on integer arithmetic. Data compression also favors the Core 9 273PE, with a 12.2% lead, which benefits archiving and file transfer workloads.

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins in tasks that appear to leverage its architecture's instruction handling and memory bandwidth. The find prime numbers test shows a 43.3% lead, indicating superior handling of certain algorithmic loops. Data encryption is 20.3% faster on the Ultra X9, which is relevant for security, VPN, and disk encryption workloads. Extended instructions, a 17.7% win, point to advantages in SIMD and specialized instruction sets that benefit multimedia processing and some scientific workloads.

Floating point math, physics simulation, and single-thread PassMark results all favor the Ultra X9, with margins of 4.1%, 3.3%, and 14.7% respectively. These wins suggest the Ultra X9 handles certain mathematical and physics-based computations more efficiently despite its lower overall multi-core scores.

The near-tie in PassMark multithread (36811 vs 36810) indicates that for real-world mixed workloads, the two processors can deliver similar throughput, but the distribution of that performance differs significantly by task type.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The Core 9 273PE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. This process difference is substantial, with the 3 nm node representing a much more advanced manufacturing technology.

The Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, with the Panther Lake-H generation designation. The Core 9 273PE is part of the Core 9 generation under Bartlett Lake. Both use Intel as the foundry.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Core 9 273PE has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and a shared L3 cache of 36 MB. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core and a larger L2 cache at 3 MB per core, but its shared L3 cache is only 18 MB, exactly half the size of the Core 9 273PE's L3.

The Core Ultra X9 388H features integrated graphics with Arc B390, while the Core 9 273PE uses UHD Graphics 730. This represents a significant difference in integrated graphics capability, with the Arc B390 being a much more modern and capable GPU solution.

Memory support also differs. The Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the memory bandwidth figures differ dramatically. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the Core 9 273PE has 89.6 GB/s. This 64 GB/s difference likely contributes to the Ultra X9's wins in memory-intensive workloads like encryption and extended instructions.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 9 273PE but absent on the Core Ultra X9 388H. This makes the Core 9 273PE suitable for workstation and server environments where data integrity is critical.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are a major differentiator. The Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 273PE supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it 24 threads, whereas the Ultra X9 does not, resulting in a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Clock speeds favor the Core 9 273PE. Its base clock is 2.30 GHz and boost clock is 5.70 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Core 9 273PE has a 0.20 GHz higher base clock and a 0.60 GHz higher boost clock.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core 9 273PE has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts. This 40-watt difference indicates that the Ultra X9 is designed for much more power-constrained environments, typical of mobile devices.

The socket types are incompatible. The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile platform. This confirms the market segments: the Core 9 273PE is a desktop processor, and the Core Ultra X9 388H is a mobile processor.

PCIe lane counts also differ. The Core 9 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). This 12-lane difference affects expansion capabilities for GPUs, NVMe drives, and other PCIe devices.

The release dates show the Core Ultra X9 388H launched first, on 2026-01-04, followed by the Core 9 273PE on 2026-03-08. The Core 9 273PE has a launch MSRP of $549. The Core Ultra X9 388H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported according to the recorded specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has 24 threads from 12 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 threads from 16 cores. The Core 9 273PE supports simultaneous multithreading, the Ultra X9 does not.

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

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 9 273PE scores 4417 versus 2200.5 for the Ultra X9, a 100.7% advantage. The R23 multi-core test also shows a 65.4% lead for the Core 9 273PE.

Q: Does the Core Ultra X9 388H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Ultra X9 wins 8 of 17 head-to-head tests, including data encryption (28490 vs 22719), extended instructions (29943 vs 24630), find prime numbers (358 vs 203), floating point math (112550 vs 107884), physics (3226 vs 3120), and PassMark single-thread (4280 vs 3650).

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PE. The Ultra X9 supports LPDDR5X memory, while the Core 9 273PE supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard?

A: No. The Core 9 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket. The platforms are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, which is 0.60 GHz higher than the Core Ultra X9 388H's 5.10 GHz. The Core 9 273PE also has a higher base clock at 2.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 9 273PE is the stronger processor for raw CPU performance. Its average benchmark score of 49845 exceeds the Ultra X9's 44466 by 11.1%, and it holds the 90th percentile position versus 88th for the Ultra X9. The massive leads in Cinebench R23 single-core (100.7%), R23 multi-core (65.4%), and integer math (53.4%) make it the clear choice for rendering, content creation, and computationally intensive desktop workloads.

The Core 9 273PE's 65-watt TDP, 5.70 GHz boost clock, 24 threads, and 36 MB L3 cache all contribute to its dominance in heavily threaded and high-frequency applications. Its support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory, along with ECC memory support, further positions it for workstation use cases.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H serves a different purpose entirely. Its 25-watt TDP, mobile BGA 2540 socket, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth indicate a design focused on power efficiency and memory throughput within a mobile form factor. Its wins in encryption, extended instructions, and floating point math show that it handles specific task types very well, despite losing the overall average benchmark comparison.

For users building a desktop system where performance is the priority, the data supports the Core 9 273PE. For mobile platforms where power consumption is constrained and memory bandwidth is critical, the Core Ultra X9 388H is the appropriate choice based on the recorded specifications and benchmark results.