Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The most dramatic gaps appear in Cinebench tests, where the Core 9 273PQE leads by roughly 165% across every single-core and multi-core workload. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 versus 14,769 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a 165.4% advantage. Single-core Cinebench R23 shows the same pattern: 5,532 against 2,085, a 165.3% lead.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 results mirror this trend. Multi-core R15 sees 3,950 versus 1,488 (165.5% delta), while single-core R15 posts 557 versus 210 (165.2% delta). In R20, the multi-core gap is 16,459 versus 6,202 (165.4%), and single-core shows 2,323 versus 875 (165.5%). These consistent margins across all three Cinebench versions indicate the Core 9 273PQE delivers roughly two and a half times the rendering throughput in these workloads.

PassMark results tell a more varied story. The largest single delta outside Cinebench is in integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164,629 against 87,948, an 87.2% advantage. Data compression also favors the Core 9 273PQE heavily: 585,752 versus 390,711, a 49.9% lead. Multi-thread performance shows a 21.9% gap (46,107 versus 37,816), and extended instructions deliver an 18.3% edge (38,743 versus 32,752).

Several PassMark subtests are closer. Floating point math shows a 6.4% lead for the Core 9 273PQE (125,546 versus 117,951), physics is 7.2% ahead (2,754 versus 2,570), and random string sorting sits at 8.5% (53,167 versus 48,980). Data encryption is nearly tied at 1.2% (29,636 versus 29,293), and single-thread performance is essentially even, with the Core 9 273PQE ahead by just 1.3% (4,573 versus 4,516).

The lone victory for the Core Ultra 5 235 comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 371 against 198, a 46.6% advantage for the Ultra 5. This result indicates the Ultra 5 235 handles prime-number searching workloads substantially better, despite losing most other comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It belongs to the Core 9 generation and offers 12 cores with 24 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm node fabricated by TSMC, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 with 14 cores and 14 threads.

Thread counts reveal a fundamental design split. The Core 9 273PQE supports simultaneous multithreading, giving 24 threads from 12 cores. The Core Ultra 5 235 runs 14 threads from 14 cores, meaning it lacks hyperthreading and each core handles one thread. This partially explains why the Core 9 273PQE dominates multi-threaded Cinebench results despite having fewer physical cores.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 273PQE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has more per-core cache, but the Core 9 has 50% more total L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 9 273PQE accepts both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports only DDR5 dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 9 offers 16 CPU lanes of Gen 5, while the Ultra 5 provides 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics represent another split. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 235 ships with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Socket compatibility is not shared: the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851.

The process and foundry differences are notable. The Ultra 5 uses a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process and contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 9 lists no transistor or die size figures, but its 10 nm Intel process is older. Release timing also differs, with the Ultra 5 launching in January 2025 and the Core 9 in March 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 reaches 5.00 GHz. Both have a 3.40 GHz base clock.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 235 support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 235 does not support ECC memory, whereas the Core 9 273PQE includes ECC support.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 4,573 and the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 4,516, a 1.3% difference. For practical purposes, single-thread performance is nearly identical.

Q: What is the only benchmark where the Core Ultra 5 235 wins?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 wins in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 371 versus 198 for the Core 9 273PQE, a 46.6% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 physical cores, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12. However, the Core 9 has 24 threads versus 14 threads for the Ultra 5.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66,099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 235 averages 46,062, placing it in the 89th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The Core 9 273PQE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235 provides 14 cores and 14 threads. Both share a 3.40 GHz base clock, but boost clocks differ at 5.90 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is substantially different: 125 W for the Core 9 and 65 W for the Ultra 5.

Cache layouts diverge in both size and distribution. The Core 9 uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 uses 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Process technology differs by node and foundry: 10 nm Intel versus 3 nm TSMC. The Ultra 5 lists 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size; the Core 9 has no recorded figures for either.

Memory support changes completely. The Core 9 runs DDR4 and DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s with ECC. The Ultra 5 runs only DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s without ECC. PCIe lane counts differ between 16 and 20 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics use different architectures: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Sockets are incompatible: Socket 1700 versus Socket 1851.

Other differences include release date (March 2026 versus January 2025), launch MSRP ($589 versus $257), and part number (SA4Q9 versus SRQAS). Both processors have locked multipliers, target the desktop market, and remain in active production.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of 17 benchmark comparisons and holds a 43.5% higher average benchmark score (66,099 versus 46,062). Its Cinebench dominance at roughly 165% across all tests makes it the stronger choice for heavily threaded rendering workloads. The PassMark integer math and data compression results reinforce this, with 87.2% and 49.9% leads respectively.

The Core Ultra 5 235 is not without merits. Its 14 physical cores and 3 nm TSMC process represent a newer manufacturing approach, and it delivers higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. It also wins the find prime numbers test by 46.6%, indicating strength in that specific workload. Its 65 W TDP suggests lower power draw than the 125 W Core 9, though the database does not record measured power consumption.

For buyers prioritizing maximum multi-core throughput, the Core 9 273PQE is the data-backed choice. Its 24 threads, higher boost clock, and larger L3 cache translate into substantial benchmark wins. For those who need a CPU with more physical cores, newer process technology, or higher memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 5 235 offers those specific attributes, but the benchmark record shows it trailing in most compute tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every Cinebench generation tested (R15, R20, R23) across both single-core and multi-core variants. It also wins in PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multi-thread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. Its largest margins appear in Cinebench multi-core (about 165%), integer math (87.2%), and data compression (49.9%). These wins make it the preferred option for rendering, compression workloads, and general multi-threaded computing.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins exactly one comparison: PassMark find prime numbers, where it leads by 46.6%. This result indicates an advantage in prime-number computation specifically. It also offers architectural features that do not appear in benchmark scores, including 14 physical cores, a 3 nm TSMC process, 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes, and higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s. For workloads that rely on prime-number searching or benefit from more physical cores without hyperthreading, the Ultra 5 235 holds a niche advantage.