Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The margins are frequently dramatic, particularly in multi-threaded and integer-heavy workloads. The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 versus 14,629.5 for the Core Ultra 5 225H, a delta of 167.9%. The single-core variant of the same test shows an even larger relative difference of 181%, with scores of 5,532 and 1,969 respectively.

The pattern holds across older Cinebench versions. In R15 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 3,950 against 2,397.5, a 64.8% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows a 93.1% lead (557 versus 288.5). R20 results are consistent: multi-core 16,459 versus 10,041 (63.9% higher) and single-core 2,323 versus 1,417 (63.9% higher). These consistent multi-generational Cinebench results indicate the Core 9 273PQE holds a substantial performance lead in both lightly-threaded and fully-saturated rendering workloads.

PassMark results reinforce the same hierarchy. Integer math shows a 140.3% advantage for the Core 9 273PQE (164,629 versus 68,520). Data compression is more than double, 585,752 versus 283,451, a 106.7% delta. Floating-point math favors the desktop part by 45.1% (125,546 versus 86,540). Extended instructions show a 76.8% lead (38,743 versus 21,915). The multithread score is 64% higher (46,107 versus 28,119), and physics is 46.7% higher (2,754 versus 1,877). Random string sorting shows a 58% advantage (53,167 versus 33,654). Data encryption is closer but still favors the Core 9 273PQE by 38.3% (29,636 versus 21,428).

The only reversal comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test. Here the Core Ultra 5 225H scores 220 against 198, a 10% win for the mobile processor. This is a notable outlier, suggesting the Arrow Lake architecture handles this particular integer iteration workload more efficiently per clock. However, it is a single isolated result against a field of otherwise sweeping victories.

In the PassMark single-thread tests, the gap narrows considerably. The Core 9 273PQE scores 4,573 versus 4,258 for the Core Ultra 5 225H, a 7.4% advantage. This indicates that while the desktop chip has a clear edge in absolute single-thread performance, the efficiency-oriented mobile part is comparatively competitive in this metric, likely due to its higher per-clock IPC from the newer architecture. The data shows the Core 9 273PQE's overall average benchmark score is 66,099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 225H averages 31,508, sitting in the 82nd percentile. The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with an average score of 66,159 and a delta of -0.1%, effectively a statistical tie. The Core Ultra 5 225H's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-13500, with a delta of 0%, indicating the mobile chip's performance profile aligns closely with that desktop mid-range part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE delivers a score of 39,190, which is 167.9% higher than the Core Ultra 5 225H's 14,629.5. This is the largest multi-threaded margin recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core Ultra 5 225H wins?

A: Yes, in the PassMark find prime numbers test, the Core Ultra 5 225H scores 220 versus 198 for the Core 9 273PQE, a 10% advantage. This is the only one of 17 recorded tests where the mobile processor comes out ahead.

Q: How close are the two in single-thread performance?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows a 7.4% lead for the Core 9 273PQE (4,573 versus 4,258). However, the Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a much larger 181% gap, indicating the desktop chip's advantage grows significantly in that specific rendering workload.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66,099, while the Core Ultra 5 225H averages 31,508. The desktop processor's average is more than double the mobile chip's average.

Q: How do they compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Core 9 273PQE is essentially tied with the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (delta of -0.1%) and is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D. The Core Ultra 5 225H is exactly tied with the Intel Core i5-13500 (delta 0%) and is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core 7 240H.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R15 score?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 557 versus 288.5 for the Core Ultra 5 225H, a 93.1% advantage. This is one of the largest single-core deltas in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and uses a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It is a desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating hyper-threading is enabled. The Core Ultra 5 225H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 14 cores but only 14 threads, meaning it lacks hyper-threading and relies on a mix of performance and efficiency cores.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 225H has larger per-core caches: 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but a much smaller shared L3 at 18 MB. The larger L3 on the desktop part likely benefits heavily multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores. The mobile part's larger per-core L1 and L2 suggest a design optimized for lower latency per core, which aligns with its narrower thread count.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 225H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and no ECC support. The mobile chip's higher bandwidth may compensate somewhat for its lower core count in memory-intensive tasks.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 225H offers Gen 5 with only 8 lanes. The desktop part therefore has more headroom for multiple discrete GPUs or high-speed storage devices. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 225H uses Arc Graphics 130T, which is likely more capable for media tasks given its newer architecture.

The Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 225H runs at 1.70 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The desktop part's higher clocks are a clear factor in its benchmark dominance. The production status for both is listed as Active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PQE was released on 2026-03-08, while the Core Ultra 5 225H came earlier on 2025-01-12.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock is 3.40 GHz versus 1.70 GHz. Boost clock is 5.90 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP is 125 W versus 28 W, reflecting the desktop part's much higher power envelope.

The socket differs completely: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 9 273PQE versus Intel BGA 2049 for the Core Ultra 5 225H. Process node is 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Core Ultra 5 225H. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 8, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Graphics 130T. Market segment is Desktop versus Mobile. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589, while the Core Ultra 5 225H has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers are SA4Q9 and SRQAM, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded workloads recorded. Its largest advantages appear in Cinebench R23 multi-core (167.9%) and single-core (181%), followed by PassMark integer math (140.3%) and data compression (106.7%). It also shows strong leads in extended instructions (76.8%), multithread (64%), and random string sorting (58%). The desktop part is clearly the choice for rendering, compilation, scientific computing, and any workload that scales across many threads.

The Core Ultra 5 225H wins only in PassMark find prime numbers, with a 10% edge. Its single-thread performance is closer in PassMark (7.4% behind), and its memory bandwidth is higher (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s). The mobile part also offers a 3 nm process node and a much lower TDP of 28 W, which suggests it is better suited for battery-powered laptops where sustained performance under a low power budget is more important than absolute throughput. Its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may also benefit latency-sensitive workloads that fit within those caches.

For tasks like prime number generation, the Core Ultra 5 225H's architecture appears to execute the inner loop more efficiently. This could be due to the newer Arrow Lake core design or the higher per-core cache allocation. However, this single win does not offset the 16 wins for the desktop part.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split by use case. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the dominant processor in nearly every benchmark category, with an average score of 66,099 versus 31,508. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the Core Ultra 5 225H's 82nd percentile confirms the desktop part sits in a higher performance tier. The 167.9% and 181% deltas in Cinebench R23 are decisive for anyone running multi-threaded or single-threaded rendering workloads. The 140.3% advantage in integer math and 106.7% in data compression further indicate a strong fit for code compilation, data processing, and archival tasks.

The Core Ultra 5 225H is not competitive in absolute performance, but its 28 W TDP and 3 nm process node point to a different objective: efficiency in a mobile form factor. Its 14 cores without hyper-threading, combined with a 4.90 GHz boost clock, produce a more modest but still capable profile, landing in the 82nd percentile. The 10% win in find prime numbers suggests the Arrow Lake core design has specific strengths in certain integer loops, and the higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s may help in bandwidth-bound scenarios. For a laptop user prioritizing battery life and adequate performance for everyday tasks, the Core Ultra 5 225H is the logical choice. For a desktop user who needs maximum throughput in multi-threaded workloads and has the power budget to support a 125 W TDP, the Core 9 273PQE is the only option that matches the data. The verdict is not about which is better in a vacuum, but which fits the physical and thermal constraints of the intended system. The benchmark records show the Core 9 273PQE is faster in 16 out of 17 tests, and that is the deciding factor for any performance-first build.