Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the clear performance leader in this comparison. The database shows a massive gap in capability, with the Core 9 273PQE delivering a 93rd percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core 9 273PQE targets demanding desktop workloads with its 24 threads and 5.90 GHz boost capability, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL is a low-power desktop processor with 14 threads and a 4.40 GHz boost clock.

The Core Ultra 5 135UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which limits direct numerical comparison. However, the architectural specifications alone explain the intended use cases. The Core 9 273PQE is for users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput and high single-core responsiveness. The Core Ultra 5 135UL is for systems where power efficiency takes priority, indicated by its 15 W TDP versus the 125 W TDP of the Core 9 273PQE.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins on raw performance potential across every measurable dimension. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 and single-core score of 5532 demonstrate strong scaling in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads. PassMark integer math at 164629 and floating point math at 125546 further confirm its advantage in computational tasks. Data compression at 585752 and data encryption at 29636 show strengths in storage-related and security-related workloads.

The Core 9 273PQE also wins on platform connectivity. It uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, doubling the lane count and moving to a newer generation than the Core Ultra 5 135UL's PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. This matters for high-bandwidth peripherals such as modern GPUs and NVMe storage. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL supports DDR5 only, with the database noting that support depends on the motherboard.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL wins in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP represents a fraction of the Core 9 273PQE's 125 W TDP. This makes it suitable for compact desktop systems where cooling and power delivery are constrained. It also has a newer socket, Intel Socket 1851, compared to the Intel Socket 1700 on the Core 9 273PQE. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics in the Ultra 5 135UL may offer different visual output capabilities than the UHD Graphics 770 in the Core 9 273PQE, though the database does not provide comparative graphics benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture on a 7 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. Both have 12 physical cores, but the Core 9 273PQE supports 24 threads via hyper-threading, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL supports only 14 threads. This indicates a different core configuration in the Ultra 5, likely a mix of performance and efficiency cores that does not double thread count across all cores.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 5 135UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PQE therefore has three times the shared L3 capacity, which helps with frequently accessed data across multiple threads.

Memory support shows both similarities and differences. Both use dual-channel memory buses with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL supports DDR5 only. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL does not.

The Core 9 273PQE was released in March 2026, while the Core Ultra 5 135UL was released in April 2024. The production status for both is listed as active. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have 12 cores, but the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 24 threads while the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has 14 threads.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the power requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 W. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What PCIe generations do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs for these processors?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has a launch MSRP of $331.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between these two processors, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has no individual benchmark scores. The comparison therefore relies on the recorded performance of the Core 9 273PQE and the architectural specifications of both parts.

The Core 9 273PQE produces a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 and a single-core score of 5532. Its Cinebench R20 results are 16459 multi-core and 2323 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 3950 multi-core and 557 single-core. These scores place it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with an average score of 66159 and a delta of negative 0.1 percent, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D with an average score of 65914 and a delta of positive 0.3 percent, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus with an average score of 66855 and a delta of negative 1.1 percent, and the AMD EPYC 4465P with an average score of 66925 and a delta of negative 1.2 percent.

The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099. This puts it within one percent of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and slightly behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and AMD EPYC 4465P. The performance clustering among these rivals shows that the Core 9 273PQE competes at the high end of the desktop processor market.

PassMark results for the Core 9 273PQE include a multi-thread score of 46107 and a single-thread score of 4573. Data compression reaches 585752, data encryption reaches 29636, extended instructions reach 38743, and find prime numbers reaches 198. Random string sorting scores 53167. The physics score is 2754.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL has an average benchmark score of zero in the database and no nearest rivals listed. Its 50th percentile ranking indicates it sits at the median of all CPUs, but without recorded scores, the data cannot quantify its performance relative to the Core 9 273PQE.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 135UL:

• Threads: 24 versus 14
• Base clock: 3.40 GHz versus 1.60 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.90 GHz versus 4.40 GHz
• TDP: 125 W versus 15 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Architecture: Bartlett Lake versus Meteor Lake
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Meteor Lake-PS
• Generation: Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Meteor Lake-PS)
• Process node: 10 nm versus 7 nm
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 112 KB per core
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 12 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• ECC memory: supported versus not supported
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG 64EU
• Release date: 2026-03-08 versus 2024-04-07
• Launch MSRP: $589 versus $331
• Part number: SA4Q9 versus SRN97

Both processors share the following: 12 cores, dual-channel memory bus, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, 2 MB L2 cache per core, Intel as the manufacturer, desktop market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers.