Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across every benchmark test in the comparison, with 17 wins and zero for the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V. The margin is substantial in nearly every category, but the size of the delta varies considerably depending on the workload type.

The most dramatic separation occurs in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 38765 for the Ultra 5 236V, a delta of 324.7%. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire head-to-head set. Data compression also shows a massive divide: the Core 9 reaches 585752 while the Ultra 5 manages 176554, a 231.8% advantage. These two tests highlight the fundamental throughput difference between a high-power desktop processor and a low-power mobile part.

Cinebench results are remarkably consistent in their margins. The multicore tests across R15, R20, and R23 all show the Core 9 leading by approximately 150.8%. Specifically, Cinebench R15 multicore scores are 3950 versus 1575, R20 multicore is 16459 versus 6563, and R23 multicore is 39190 versus 15628. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with deltas of 150.9% in R15 (557 vs 222) and R20 (2323 vs 926), and 150.8% in R23 (5532 vs 2206). This uniformity suggests the performance ratio is largely consistent across rendering workloads of varying intensity.

Some tests show smaller relative gaps. PassMark single-thread results have the Core 9 at 4573 and the Ultra 5 at 3893, a 17.5% delta. Prime number search is even closer: 198 versus 171, a 15.8% difference. Floating point math shows a 137.9% gap (125546 vs 52774), while extended instructions sit at 150.7% (38743 vs 15451). Random string sorting lands at 145.8% (53167 vs 21628), and physics at 83.2% (2754 vs 1503). Data encryption shows a 127.1% delta (29636 vs 13049), and multithread testing shows 46107 versus 18375, a 150.9% gap.

The pattern is clear: the Core 9 dominates in every measured category, with the closest contests occurring in single-threaded and prime-number workloads, while the widest gaps appear in integer math and data compression. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 is 66099, placing it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ultra 5 averages 21952, sitting at the 75th percentile.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate two processors built for entirely different segments. The Intel Core 9 273PQE belongs to the desktop space with a 125 TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V is a mobile part with a 17 TDP. The 273PQE delivers roughly triple the average benchmark score of the 236V (66099 versus 21952), placing it 93rd percentile versus 75th percentile.

The data shows the Core 9 273PQE is the correct choice for any workload where raw compute throughput matters. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with an average score of 66159 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.3% ahead of the Core 9), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (1.2% ahead). The Core 9 competes at the top tier of desktop processors.

The Ultra 5 236V, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V (21981, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i7-11700F (21988, 0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (21992, 0.2% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9534 (21900, 0.2% behind). It matches older desktop processors from several generations ago, but cannot approach the Core 9's output.

Users who need maximum rendering performance, heavy integer computation, or large-scale data compression should pick the Core 9 273PQE. Users who require a low-power mobile processor with integrated graphics and a compact BGA package should pick the Ultra 5 236V, but they should expect roughly one-third the benchmark performance of the desktop part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lines and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Ultra 5 236V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm node by TSMC. This process difference is substantial: the TSMC 3 nm node is considerably more advanced than Intel's 10 nm node, which explains how the Ultra 5 achieves useful performance at a 17 TDP.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 9 has 12 cores with 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 has 8 cores with 8 threads. The Ultra 5 does not support simultaneous multithreading, which halves its thread count relative to core count. Cache hierarchy also diverges: the Core 9 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 8 MB of shared L3.

The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2833. The former is a desktop socket, the latter a soldered mobile package. Memory support differs as well: the Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Ultra 5's memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard, also dual-channel, with no ECC support and no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe capabilities differ: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc 130V. The Ultra 5 belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 9 is in the Core 9 generation. Release dates place the Core 9 at 2026-03-08 and the Ultra 5 at 2024-09-23.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds: the Core 9 has a 3.40 GHz base clock and a 5.90 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 5 has a 2.10 GHz base and a 4.70 GHz boost. Power: TDP is 125 for the Core 9 versus 17 for the Ultra 5. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2833. Process node: 10 nm Intel versus 3 nm TSMC.

Cache: L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core is 2 MB versus 2.5 MB. L3 shared is 36 MB versus 8 MB. Memory: the Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC, while the Ultra 5's support is motherboard-dependent with no ECC. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s recorded for the Core 9, none recorded for the Ultra 5. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 4, both Gen 5 CPU-only.

Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc 130V. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Launch MSRP: the Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $589; the Ultra 5 has no recorded launch MSRP. Multiplier unlocked status is false for both. The Core 9 has part number SA4Q9, while the Ultra 5 has SRPN2SRPN3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: PassMark integer math shows the Core 9 at 164629 versus 38765 for the Ultra 5, a 324.7% delta, the largest of any recorded test.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 236V does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 9 273PQE averages 66099, placing at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 236V averages 21952, placing at the 75th percentile.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Ultra 5 236V uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm Intel process.

Q: What are the thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison, so the data does not show any test category where the Ultra 5 236V takes the lead. The closest contests for the Core 9 are in PassMark single-thread (17.5% ahead) and prime number search (15.8% ahead), suggesting the Ultra 5 is relatively less disadvantaged in lightly threaded integer workloads. The widest margins for the Core 9 are in integer math (324.7%), data compression (231.8%), and the various multithreaded Cinebench tests (approximately 150.8%).

The Ultra 5 236V's advantages are not visible in benchmark scores but appear in its physical characteristics. It has a 17 TDP versus 125, a 3 nm TSMC process versus 10 nm Intel, and a BGA 2833 mobile socket versus Intel Socket 1700. It also uses the Arc 130V integrated graphics, while the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770. For mobile deployments where power draw and physical package size matter, the Ultra 5 is the only viable option between the two, but every performance metric in the database favors the Core 9 273PQE.