Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split heavily favors the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which takes 15 of 17 recorded tests. Its dominance is most pronounced in integer-heavy and compression workloads. The Core 9 273PQE leads by 80.5% in PassMark integer math (164629 vs 91187) and by 46.1% in data compression (585752 vs 400942). These are the largest margins in the entire comparison, indicating a clear advantage in arithmetic-heavy productivity tasks and archival workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins only two tests, both in PassMark's specialized workloads. It leads by 2% in data encryption (30236 vs 29636) and by 45.8% in prime number finding (365 vs 198). The encryption result is narrow, but the prime number gap is substantial. That workload appears to respond well to the Ultra 5's architecture, despite the Core 9's overall lead in multithreaded performance.

The Core 9 273PQE also wins every Cinebench test by a consistent 19% margin, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. This uniformity suggests the Core 9's higher boost clock (5.90 GHz vs 5.10 GHz) provides a steady advantage across rendering workloads, regardless of thread count. The Core Ultra 5 245 leads in no Cinebench test.

For single-threaded PassMark tests, the Core 9 273PQE wins by 4.1% (4573 vs 4394), a smaller margin than the Cinebench single-core delta. For floating point math, the gap is also 4.1% (125546 vs 120548). The Core 9 273PQE wins physics (2754 vs 2569, +7.2%) and random string sorting (53167 vs 49140, +8.2%). The overall pattern is clear: the Core 9 273PQE wins broadly, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has isolated strengths in two specific PassMark subtests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE leads in every Cinebench multi-core test by 19%. Scores are 3950 vs 3318 in R15, 16459 vs 13828 in R20, and 39190 vs 32924 in R23. PassMark multithread also favors the Core 9 273PQE at 46107 vs 38706, a 19.1% lead.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 245 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two PassMark tests: data encryption (30236 vs 29636, +2%) and find prime numbers (365 vs 198, +45.8%). No other recorded test goes to the Core Ultra 5 245.

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

A: The Core 9 273PQE wins all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5532 vs 4648 (+19%), while PassMark single-thread shows 4573 vs 4394 (+4.1%). The Cinebench margin is larger than the PassMark margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 245 averages 48995, in the 90th percentile. The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (-0.1% delta), while the Core Ultra 5 245 sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G at 49196 (-0.4% delta).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores but only 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, using hyperthreading. Despite fewer cores, the Core 9 273PQE wins all multithreaded benchmarks.

Q: How large is the cache difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 24 MB. Per-core L2 cache is 2 MB for the Core 9 273PQE and 3 MB for the Core Ultra 5 245. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the Core 9 273PQE and 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 245.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core 9 273PQE comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 164629 against 91187, a delta of 80.5%. This is the single biggest gap in the entire dataset. The second-largest win is in data compression at 46.1% (585752 vs 400942). These two results show that the Core 9 273PQE is disproportionately strong in workloads that stress integer arithmetic and memory-bound compression routines.

The Core Ultra 5 245's biggest win is in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 365 against 198, a delta of -45.8% from the Core 9's perspective. This is a massive reversal, suggesting the Ultra 5's architecture handles this specific algorithmic pattern much more efficiently. The other win, data encryption at 30236 vs 29636, is narrow at just 2% and could be considered within measurement noise.

In Cinebench tests, all six results show the same 19% delta in favor of the Core 9 273PQE. This consistency is notable because the workloads scale from single-core (R15 single: 557 vs 468) to multi-core (R23 multi: 39190 vs 32924). The 19% margin holds across all of them, indicating a broad per-clock advantage rather than a thread-count effect.

PassMark multithread shows a 19.1% lead for the Core 9 273PQE (46107 vs 38706), closely matching the Cinebench multi-core deltas. PassMark physics shows a 7.2% lead (2754 vs 2569), and random string sorting shows 8.2% (53167 vs 49140). Floating point math is close at 4.1% (125546 vs 120548), as is single-thread at 4.1% (4573 vs 4394). Extended instructions favor the Core 9 273PQE by 16.3% (38743 vs 33304).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE and 3.50 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 245, but boost clocks diverge more significantly: 5.90 GHz vs 5.10 GHz.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core 9 273PQE is rated at 125 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 245 is rated at 65 W. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports only DDR5, with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses and both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes differ. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 245 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Physical specifications diverge. The Core Ultra 5 245 is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel's 10 nm process with no transistor or die size data recorded. Release dates differ as well: the Core Ultra 5 245 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Core 9 273PQE launched on 2026-03-08. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PQE is $589. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 245 is $270.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE comes from Bartlett Lake, part of the Core 9 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 comes from Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. These are fundamentally different architectures with different manufacturing approaches.

The Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. This process difference likely explains the Ultra 5's much lower 65 W TDP despite having 14 cores, compared to the Core 9's 125 W TDP with 12 cores.

Threading models differ. The Core 9 273PQE supports 24 threads from 12 cores, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports only 14 threads from 14 cores, indicating no SMT. This is a major architectural choice: the Ultra 5 uses more physical cores but no logical threads, while the Core 9 uses fewer physical cores with doubled threads.

Cache hierarchies differ. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, with 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 245 has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, with 24 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 has larger per-core caches but less total L3.

Both support PCIe Gen 5, but the Core Ultra 5 245 offers 20 lanes versus 16 for the Core 9 273PQE. Both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ, with the Core 9 273PQE using UHD Graphics 770 and the Core Ultra 5 245 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 245 is DDR5-only.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which wins 15 of 17 benchmarks and holds an average score of 66099 versus 48995 for the Core Ultra 5 245. The Core 9 273PQE is the choice for users prioritizing multithreaded rendering, integer math, and compression workloads, where its leads range from 19% in Cinebench to 80.5% in PassMark integer math. Its 24 threads and 5.90 GHz boost clock deliver consistent advantages across every Cinebench generation tested.

The Core Ultra 5 245 has a narrower but real set of strengths. It wins PassMark prime number finding by 45.8% and data encryption by 2%. Users whose workloads are dominated by prime-number sieving or encryption routines may prefer the Ultra 5. Additionally, its 65 W TDP, 3 nm TSMC process, and 14 physical cores make it a more efficient design on paper, though the recorded data shows it trailing in multithreaded performance.

For most applications, the Core 9 273PQE is the faster processor. Its 19% Cinebench lead applies equally to single-core and multi-core tests, meaning both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads benefit. The PassMark integer and compression results amplify this advantage in specific productivity tasks. The Core Ultra 5 245's wins are isolated to two specialized PassMark subtests, which limits its practical appeal for general-purpose computing.

The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 245 sits in the 90th. Their nearest rivals reflect this tier difference: the Core 9 273PQE competes with the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (66159 average, -0.1% delta) and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914, +0.3%), while the Core Ultra 5 245 competes with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, -0.4%) and AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, -0.5%). The Core 9 273PQE is positioned in a higher performance class entirely.