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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided contest. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T claiming only a single victory. The margins, however, vary dramatically depending on the workload type.

In Cinebench tests, the Core 9 273PQE dominates by a consistent margin. The R15 multicore test shows 3950 against 2214, a 78.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 557 versus 312, also a 78.5% gap. This pattern repeats across R20 and R23. The R20 multicore score of 16459 versus 9227 and the R23 multicore score of 39190 versus 21971 both reflect the same 78.4% delta. Single-core R20 (2323 vs 1302) and R23 (5532 vs 3101) each show 78.4% differences as well. The consistency of these percentages suggests the performance gap scales uniformly across rendering workloads, regardless of the Cinebench version used.

PassMark results reveal where each processor's architecture excels. The largest margin appears in integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 59543, a 176.5% lead. Data compression follows closely: 585752 versus 233998, a 150.3% advantage. The extended instructions test shows a 92.9% gap (38743 vs 20083). Random string sorting favors the Core 9 by 84.8% (53167 vs 28774), while multithread performance shows an 81.8% difference (46107 vs 25358).

The Core 9 also leads in floating-point math, though by a smaller margin: 125546 versus 82751, a 51.7% gap. Data encryption shows a 62% advantage (29636 vs 18289). Physics simulation results in a 34.1% lead (2754 vs 2053). The narrowest Core 9 win comes in single-threaded PassMark testing, where 4573 edges out 4348 by just 5.2%.

The single test won by the Core Ultra 5 225T is find prime numbers. It scores 284 against 198, a 30.3% advantage. This outlier result suggests the Ultra 5's architecture handles this specific integer workload more efficiently, despite losing decisively in other integer-based tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE establishes itself as the clear choice for rendering, compression, encryption, and multithreaded productivity. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 places it in a performance tier the Ultra 5 cannot approach with its 21971 result. The 78.4% margin across all Cinebench tests indicates a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Data-heavy tasks strongly favor the Core 9. The 150.3% lead in data compression and 176.5% lead in integer math make it the obvious pick for archiving, database operations, and code compilation. The 84.8% advantage in random string sorting further reinforces this pattern. For encryption workloads, the 62% gap (29636 vs 18289) still represents a substantial win, though smaller than the compression margin.

The Ultra 5 225T's only meaningful territory is the prime number calculation test. Its 284 score versus 198 represents a 30.3% win. This could indicate better branch prediction or a more efficient instruction path for this specific loop-heavy workload. However, this single victory does not offset the broader pattern. Even in floating-point math, where the Ultra 5's 3 nm process might suggest efficiency advantages, the Core 9 leads by 51.7%.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core 9 maintains an edge, but the 5.2% margin in PassMark single-thread testing is far smaller than the multicore gaps. This suggests that for lightly threaded everyday tasks, the two processors are closer in feel than the raw core count difference would imply. The Core 9's 5.90 GHz boost clock versus the Ultra 5's 4.90 GHz helps explain this advantage, but the modest percentage shows the Ultra 5's architecture extracts more per-clock performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process, while the Ultra 5 225T uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm TSMC node with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The process node difference is stark: three generations of lithography separate them.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 9 offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 provides 10 cores and 10 threads. The Core 9's hyperthreading capability doubles its thread count, a feature the Ultra 5 lacks entirely. This explains the massive multicore performance gaps. The Core 9's 24 threads simply have more execution resources to apply to parallel workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 9 uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 counters with 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, but only 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5's larger per-core caches reflect its newer architecture, but the Core 9's 36 MB L3 gives it nearly twice the shared cache for data sharing across cores.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 5's bandwidth reaches 102.4 GB/s against the Core 9's 89.6 GB/s. The Core 9 supports ECC memory; the Ultra 5 does not. PCIe lanes favor the Ultra 5 with 20 Gen 5 lanes versus the Core 9's 16 Gen 5 lanes.

Sockets and platforms are incompatible. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 requires Intel Socket 1851. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 carries UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 released on 2026-03-08, while the Ultra 5 appeared earlier on 2024-12-31.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear performance hierarchy. The Core 9 273PQE's average benchmark score of 66099 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 5 225T's 30468 average sits in the 82nd percentile. The Core 9's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159, a mere 0.1% difference, followed by the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.3% behind). The Ultra 5 225T competes in a different tier entirely, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i9-11980HK at 30422 (0.2% behind).

The Core 9 273PQE is the processor for multithreaded productivity, content creation, and data-heavy workloads. Its 78.4% Cinebench margin and 176.5% integer math lead leave no ambiguity. The Ultra 5 225T, with its 65 W TDP against the Core 9's 125 W, targets efficiency-focused builds where the single prime number win and 5.2% single-thread gap suggest it can handle lighter tasks with far less power draw. The 3 nm TSMC process and newer Arrow Lake architecture give it a modern foundation, but the benchmark results show the Core 9's older, wider design simply delivers more raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE averages 66099, versus 30468 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T.

Q: How much faster is the Core 9 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core 9 scores 39190 against 21971 for the Ultra 5, a 78.4% advantage.

Q: Did the Ultra 5 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it won the PassMark find prime numbers test with 284 versus 198, a 30.3% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Core 9 has 12 cores and 24 threads; the Ultra 5 has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No, the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor?

A: The Core 9's closest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (0.1% difference), while the Ultra 5's closest rival is the Intel Core i9-11980HK (0.2% difference).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra 5 225T |

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

| Cores | 12 | 10 |

| Threads | 24 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.90 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | Not specified |

| Part Number | SA4Q9 | Unknown |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 93 | 82 |