Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 238V Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V represent two entirely different design philosophies from Intel. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop processor built for maximum throughput, while the Core Ultra 5 238V is a low-power mobile chip optimized for efficiency. The benchmark data confirms a complete performance separation, with the Core 9 273PQE winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The analysis below breaks down the specific margins, architectural reasons, and practical implications of this data.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which wins every single benchmark in the comparison set. The Core Ultra 5 238V does not win a single test. This is not a close contest with trade-offs; it is a categorical performance hierarchy.

The Core 9 273PQE’s dominance is most pronounced in heavily multithreaded workloads. PassMark’s integer math test shows the largest gap, with the Core 9 delivering a 323.3% higher score. Data compression also shows a massive 231.8% advantage. These are workloads that scale with core count, thread count, and sustained power delivery, all areas where a 125 W desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads should excel.

The Core Ultra 5 238V’s closest relative performance comes in single-threaded and lightly threaded tests. The PassMark single-thread test shows the Core 9 ahead by only 17.6%, and the find prime numbers test shows a 13.8% gap. These smaller margins indicate that the Lunar Lake architecture’s performance per clock is competitive in short, low-parallelism bursts. However, even in these cases, the Core 9 still wins. The Core Ultra 5 238V is a capable mobile processor, but its role is clearly not competing in the same performance class as the desktop part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V has an average score of 21981, placing it in the 75th percentile.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 compared to the Core Ultra 5 238V’s 38889, a difference of 323.3%.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core Ultra 5 238V scores 15645. The Core 9 leads by 150.5%.

Q: Is the Core Ultra 5 238V competitive in any benchmark?

A: The Core Ultra 5 238V does not win any benchmark in the recorded data. Its smallest deficit is 13.8% in the PassMark find prime numbers test, followed by a 17.6% gap in the PassMark single-thread test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE’s nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which has an average score of 66159, a 0.1% difference. The Core Ultra 5 238V’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-11700F, with an average score of 21988, a 0% difference.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9 also has a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, compared to 2.10 GHz and 4.70 GHz for the Core Ultra 5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15, the Core 9 scores 3950 multi-core and 557 single-core, against 1576 and 222 for the Core Ultra 5. That is a 150.6% lead in multi-core and a 150.9% lead in single-core. The R20 results mirror this: 16459 versus 6570 multi-core (150.5% lead) and 2323 versus 927 single-core (150.6% lead). Cinebench R23 follows the same script: 39190 versus 15645 multi-core (150.5%) and 5532 versus 2208 single-core (150.5%).

The PassMark suite reveals where the Core 9’s architecture truly pulls away. Integer math is the standout: 164629 versus 38889, a 323.3% advantage. Data compression shows 585752 versus 176532, a 231.8% lead. Extended instructions scores 38743 versus 15377, a 152% lead. Floating-point math is 125546 versus 53160, a 136.2% lead. Multithread performance is 46107 versus 18407, a 150.5% lead. Random string sorting is 53167 versus 21585, a 146.3% lead. Data encryption is 29636 versus 13072, a 126.7% lead. Physics is 2754 versus 1546, a 78.1% lead.

The closer tests are still wins for the Core 9. PassMark single-thread shows 4573 versus 3890, a 17.6% lead. Find prime numbers shows 198 versus 174, a 13.8% lead. These smaller margins suggest that the Core Ultra 5’s per-core efficiency is solid, but it cannot overcome the Core 9’s higher boost clock and larger cache allocation. The single-thread gap of 17.6% is the narrowest in the entire dataset, indicating that the Lunar Lake core design is a strong performer in lightly threaded scenarios, just not strong enough to take a win.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 238V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9’s base clock is 3.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.90 GHz; the Core Ultra 5 runs at 2.10 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The Core 9 has a TDP of 125 W, the Core Ultra 5 sits at 17 W.

The Core 9 uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Core Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2833, which is a soldered mobile package. The Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 also has a dual-channel bus, but its memory support is listed as unknown and depends on the motherboard. The Core 9 supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 5 does not. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 uses Arc 130V. The market segments are different, Desktop for the Core 9 and Mobile for the Core Ultra 5.

The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. The Core Ultra 5 238V has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PQE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture and manufactured by Intel on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 238V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm process. This process difference explains part of the power disparity: the 17 W TDP of the Lunar Lake part would not be achievable on the older Intel node.

Cache layouts are structurally different. The Core 9 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core 9’s L3 cache is 4.5 times larger, which benefits large working sets in multithreaded workloads. The Core Ultra 5’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches suggest an emphasis on single-thread responsiveness within a low-power envelope.

The Core Ultra 5 238V is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, a generation defined by its efficiency focus. The Core 9 273PQE belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation with a production status of Active. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Core 9’s release date is March 2026, while the Core Ultra 5 was released in September 2024. The Core Ultra 5’s part number is listed as SRPN5SRPN4, and the Core 9’s part number is SA4Q9.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is categorically faster across every recorded benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 66099 puts it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 238V’s 21981 places it in the 75th percentile. The Core 9’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, sit within 1.2% of its average score, confirming it belongs to a high-end desktop performance tier.

The Core Ultra 5 238V’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-11700F and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, both with average scores within 0.4% of its 21981 total. This places the Core Ultra 5 in a much lower performance class, despite its modern 3 nm process and efficient 17 W TDP. Its narrowest losses, 13.8% in prime number finding and 17.6% in single-thread performance, show that its core design is competent, but the desktop part’s higher clocks and thread count create an insurmountable gap.

The choice between these two is dictated by the use case. The Core 9 273PQE is the clear selection for desktop workloads requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, as shown by its 323.3% lead in integer math and 231.8% lead in data compression. The Core Ultra 5 238V, with its 8 cores, 8 threads, and 17 W TDP, serves a completely different mobile role where power efficiency and compact integration take priority over raw scores. The benchmark data confirms that these processors are not competitors; they are solutions for separate product categories.