Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL occupy very different positions in the desktop processor lineup, and the recorded benchmark data confirms a wide performance gap between them. The Core 9 273PQE is a high-core-count part with a 93rd percentile ranking among all tested CPUs, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL sits at the 68th percentile. Across every single benchmark in the database, the Core 9 273PQE takes the win, with a total of 17 wins to zero for the Core Ultra 3 105UL. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099, compared to 13061 for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, a difference that places them in entirely separate performance tiers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from the Cinebench suite, where the Core 9 273PQE shows a consistent advantage of roughly 348% across all tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 against 8742 for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, a delta of 348.3%. The single-core results follow the same pattern: 5532 versus 1234 in Cinebench R23 single-core, again a 348.3% gap. This consistency across the different Cinebench versions, R15, R20, and R23, indicates that the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-thread performance in the Passmark suite tells a somewhat different story. The Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 in Passmark single-thread, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL manages 3382. The delta here is 35.2%, which is far smaller than the multi-core gaps but still a decisive win for the Core 9 273PQE. This suggests that the Core 9 273PQE's higher boost clock plays a significant role, but the Core Ultra 3 105UL is not completely outclassed in lightly threaded tasks.

The largest delta in the entire comparison appears in Passmark extended instructions, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 38743 against 5634 for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, a 587.7% advantage. This test likely stresses vectorized and specialized instruction paths, where the Core 9 273PQE's architecture and higher power envelope provide a massive edge. Passmark data compression shows a similar pattern: 585752 versus 93961, a 523.4% delta. The Core 9 273PQE also leads by 366.4% in data encryption, scoring 29636 versus 6354.

Other Passmark tests show equally large margins. In integer math, the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 41171, a 299.9% delta. Floating point math shows 125546 versus 30750, a 308.3% difference. Random string sorting favors the Core 9 273PQE by 375.6%, with scores of 53167 and 11179 respectively. The smallest delta outside of single-thread performance is in Passmark physics, where the Core 9 273PQE leads by 283.6% with 2754 points against 718.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core 9 273PQE in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, which is 348.3% higher than the Core Ultra 3 105UL's 8742. The same 348% delta appears across Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 in Passmark single-thread, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL scores 3382, a 35.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is much larger at 348.3%, with scores of 5532 and 1234.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth specification?

A: Both processors are listed with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and dual-channel memory buses. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL's memory support is listed as DDR5, dependent on the motherboard.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, only the Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 3 105UL does not have ECC support listed in the database.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the database's overall ranking?

A: The Core 9 273PQE is at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66099. The Core Ultra 3 105UL is at the 68th percentile with an average score of 13061.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architecture families. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 generation, built on a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 3 105UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename, from the Ultra 3 generation, built on a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is notable: the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses a smaller 7 nm node, while the Core 9 273PQE uses 10 nm.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads. The thread count difference indicates that the Core 9 273PQE supports simultaneous multithreading on all cores, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL's 10 threads over 8 cores suggests a hybrid configuration where only some cores contribute extra threads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, the same 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the Core 9 273PQE, 36 MB versus 10 MB, likely contributes to its substantial lead in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

PCIe support is another differentiator. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes. This makes the Core 9 273PQE more suitable for high-bandwidth expansion, including modern GPUs and NVMe storage. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 48EU.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most fundamental difference: 12 cores and 24 threads for the Core 9 273PQE versus 8 cores and 10 threads for the Core Ultra 3 105UL. Base clocks differ substantially, with the Core 9 273PQE running at 3.40 GHz and the Core Ultra 3 105UL at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks show a similar gap: 5.90 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE versus 4.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 3 105UL.

Thermal design power is a major separator. The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has a TDP of 15. This eightfold difference in power envelope explains much of the performance gap, as the Core 9 273PQE can sustain much higher clock speeds under load. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support differs in type. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5, with the specific type depending on the motherboard. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Core Ultra 3 105UL. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PQE is $589, and for the Core Ultra 3 105UL it is $295. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking.

The release dates also differ, with the Core Ultra 3 105UL released on 2024-04-07 and the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08. The part numbers are SA4Q9 for the Core 9 273PQE and SRN9D for the Core Ultra 3 105UL.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Core 9 273PQE outperforms the Core Ultra 3 105UL in every recorded benchmark. The average benchmark score of 66099 for the Core 9 273PQE places it near the top of the database, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (a 0.3% difference). The Core Ultra 3 105UL, with an average score of 13061, sits closest to the Intel Core i5-9400F at 13041 (0.2% difference) and the Intel Core i7-10750H at 13024 (0.3% difference).

For users who need maximum multi-threaded performance, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice. Its 348% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests and its 93rd percentile ranking make it suitable for demanding desktop workloads. The Core Ultra 3 105UL, at the 68th percentile, targets a lower performance tier entirely. Its 15 TDP and 1.50 GHz base clock indicate a focus on efficiency rather than raw throughput.

The single-thread results are the only area where the gap narrows. The 35.2% difference in Passmark single-thread means the Core Ultra 3 105UL is less disadvantaged in lightly threaded scenarios, but it still loses decisively. The Core 9 273PQE's 5.90 GHz boost clock versus 4.20 GHz on the Core Ultra 3 105UL provides the margin in these tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, so the use-case split is based on the magnitude of the wins rather than the direction. For multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, and scientific computing, the Core 9 273PQE's advantages are massive, with deltas of 348% or more across Cinebench and Passmark multi-thread tests. Its 36 MB L3 cache and 24 threads give it a decisive edge in data compression, where it leads by 523.4%, and in extended instructions, where it leads by 587.7%.

The Core Ultra 3 105UL, despite losing every test, has a narrower gap in Passmark single-thread, where it trails by only 35.2%. This makes it less unsuitable for basic desktop tasks, web browsing, and office applications, though the data shows it still loses. Its 15 TDP makes it a low-power option, and the smaller process node at 7 nm may offer efficiency advantages in constrained environments, but the benchmark results do not show any workload where it takes the lead.

For systems requiring ECC memory support, the Core 9 273PQE is the only option between these two. For systems using Intel Socket 1851 and DDR5-only memory, the Core Ultra 3 105UL fits that platform, while the Core 9 273PQE requires Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 3 105UL also uses fewer PCIe lanes at Gen 4, which may be sufficient for basic expansion but limits high-bandwidth configurations. The Core 9 273PQE's Gen 5 lanes and higher core count make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy desktops, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL serves as a lower-power alternative within its own platform.