Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core i7-13790F Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and Intel Core i7-13790F are both 24-thread desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but they target different performance profiles. The Core 9 273PQE is a newer Bartlett Lake part with a higher boost clock and more L3 cache, while the Core i7-13790F is a Raptor Lake chip with more physical cores and a lower TDP. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the i7-13790F holds its own in specific workloads, making the choice dependent on the intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the Core 9 273PQE’s dominance in Cinebench tests. Across all six Cinebench runs (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), the Core 9 273PQE wins by a consistent 10.7% margin. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 against the i7-13790F’s 35404. The single-core R23 result is similarly one-sided: 5532 versus 4998. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk, as the Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz compared to the i7-13790F’s 5.20 GHz.

The Core 9 273PQE also wins in PassMark’s CPU-intensive math tests. Its floating-point math score of 125546 beats the i7-13790F’s 110512, a 13.6% lead, which is the largest delta in the entire dataset. Integer math goes to the Core 9 273PQE by 8.7% (164629 versus 151416), and extended instructions favor it by 11.2% (38743 versus 34828). The Core 9 273PQE also leads in multithreaded PassMark by 3.1% (46107 versus 44737) and in single-thread PassMark by 8.6% (4573 versus 4212).

However, the i7-13790F wins four tests, and its victories are not trivial. The largest win for the i7-13790F is in random string sorting, where it scores 58607 versus 53167, a 9.3% advantage. It also wins in physics simulation (3017 versus 2754, an 8.7% lead), data encryption (31703 versus 29636, a 6.5% lead), and prime number finding (207 versus 198, a 4.3% lead). These wins point to areas where the i7-13790F’s 16 physical cores (versus 12 on the Core 9 273PQE) can be leveraged more effectively, even at lower clock speeds.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Core 9 273PQE averages 66099 across all tests, while the i7-13790F averages 63080. That is a roughly 4.8% overall advantage for the Core 9 273PQE, but the distribution is uneven. The Core 9 273PQE wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with the i7-13790F taking the remaining 4.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice for any workload that relies on raw single-thread speed or general multi-threaded throughput. Its 10.7% lead in every Cinebench test, which includes both rendering (multi-core) and UI interaction (single-core), indicates it is the better processor for video encoding, 3D rendering, and other heavily threaded creative applications. The 13.6% lead in floating-point math is particularly relevant for scientific computing and financial modeling, where double-precision calculations are common. The 8.6% single-thread PassMark win also makes it the better pick for everyday responsiveness, web browsing, and lightly threaded games that depend on high clock speeds.

The i7-13790F, despite being slower on average, wins in specific scenarios that involve high core counts and particular instruction patterns. Its 9.3% win in random string sorting suggests it is better at database operations and text processing, where sorting and hashing are frequent. The 8.7% win in physics simulation is notable for game physics engines, and the 6.5% win in data encryption means it is the better part for VPNs, encrypted storage, or secure communication workloads. The prime number finding win, while small at 4.3%, also points to a slight edge in integer-heavy algorithms that benefit from more physical cores.

For a mixed workload, the Core 9 273PQE is the safer bet because it wins the majority of tests and has a higher average score. But for a system dedicated to encryption or physics simulation, the i7-13790F’s wins are not marginal; they are consistent and meaningful. The i7-13790F also does this with a 65 W TDP versus the Core 9 273PQE’s 125 W TDP, which could be a deciding factor for constrained builds, though the performance per watt is not directly measured here.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core 9 273PQE as the overall faster processor. It wins 13 out of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test by exactly 10.7%, and its average score of 66099 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, the same percentile as the i7-13790F but with a higher raw average. If you are building a machine for rendering, video editing, or any task that scales with multi-threaded performance, the Core 9 273PQE is the straightforward pick. Its 5.90 GHz boost clock also gives it a definitive edge in single-threaded work, which is why it wins all single-core tests by 8.6% or more.

However, the Intel Core i7-13790F is not obsolete. It wins in physics, encryption, string sorting, and prime number finding, which are all workloads that benefit from its 16 physical cores. If your primary use case is server-style work, such as running a database or a firewall, or if you are building a gaming PC where physics simulation matters, the i7-13790F’s wins are relevant. Additionally, its 65 W TDP makes it easier to cool and power, which could be a practical advantage in a small form factor build. The i7-13790F also has a lower launch MSRP of $441 compared to the Core 9 273PQE’s $589, but the Core 9 273PQE’s higher average score justifies the premium for most users.

The Core 9 273PQE should be chosen by users who want the fastest possible Cinebench and math performance. The i7-13790F should be chosen by users who know their specific workloads align with its four wins and who value the lower power draw. The data does not support a universal recommendation for the i7-13790F, but it does support a niche one.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, which is 10.7% higher than the Intel Core i7-13790F’s 35404.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-13790F win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 out of 17 head-to-head tests: data encryption (6.5% lead), find prime numbers (4.3% lead), physics (8.7% lead), and random string sorting (9.3% lead).

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average score of 66099, while the Intel Core i7-13790F averages 63080. The Core 9 273PQE is about 4.8% higher.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i7-13790F has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores. Both have 24 threads.

Q: What are the boost clocks of each CPU?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-13790F boosts to 5.20 GHz.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, but the Intel Core i7-13790F does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different core layouts. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Intel Core i7-13790F is based on Raptor Lake-S. Both are built on Intel’s 10 nm process node and manufactured by Intel, but the Core i7-13790F has a published die size of 257 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE does not have a listed die size.

The core count is the most significant architectural difference. The Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the i7-13790F has four additional physical cores, which explains its wins in physics and encryption. The Core 9 273PQE compensates with a higher boost clock (5.90 GHz versus 5.20 GHz) and a larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 33 MB). Both have the same per-core L1 cache (80 KB) and L2 cache (2 MB).

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core i7-13790F has no integrated graphics (the “F” suffix). This is a notable feature difference: the Core 9 273PQE can output video without a discrete GPU, which could be useful for troubleshooting or basic systems. The Core i7-13790F requires a dedicated graphics card.

ECC memory support is another divergence. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-13790F does not. This makes the Core 9 273PQE more suitable for error-sensitive workloads like data integrity checks. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode, but the Core 9 273PQE has a listed memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core i7-13790F does not have a listed bandwidth.

Finally, the PCIe implementation differs. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-13790F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The i7-13790F has more PCIe lanes, which could be beneficial for additional NVMe drives or expansion cards.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two CPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core i7-13790F |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.90 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 65 W |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not listed | Raptor Lake |

| Generation | Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i7 (Raptor Lake) |

| Die Size | Not listed | 257 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 33 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | $441 |

| Part Number | SA4Q9 | SRMBZ |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2023-02-09 |

Both CPUs share the same socket (Intel Socket 1700), thread count (24), process node (10 nm), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (Dual-channel), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked status (false). The Core i7-13790F has a 65 W TDP, which is nearly half the Core 9 273PQE’s 125 W, making it a more power-efficient option despite having more cores. The Core 9 273PQE compensates with higher clocks, more cache, and additional features like ECC and integrated graphics.