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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core 9 273PQE across the head-to-head benchmark suite, winning 15 of 17 comparisons. The most striking margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against the Core Ultra 5 245HX’s 92150, a 78.7% advantage. This is the largest delta recorded in the entire comparison and indicates a substantial difference in raw integer throughput capabilities.

Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. Across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), both single-core and multi-core tests show exactly a 21.1% advantage for the Core 9 273PQE. The R23 multi-core score of 39190 versus 32358 and the R23 single-core score of 5532 versus 4568 both reflect this identical margin. Such uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent, likely tied to architectural efficiency rather than frequency scaling alone.

Data compression also favors the Core 9 273PQE heavily. The PassMark data compression test shows 585752 against 393071, a 49% lead. This workload benefits from the higher core count and thread count of the Core 9 273PQE, which has 12 cores and 24 threads versus the Core Ultra 5 245HX’s 14 cores and 14 threads. The absence of simultaneous multithreading (SMT) on the Core Ultra 5 245HX appears to be a decisive factor in threaded workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 245HX secures two wins, both in niche workloads. PassMark data encryption shows a slim 1.3% advantage, scoring 30022 versus 29636. The larger win comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 359 against only 198, a 44.8% lead. This prime-number workload often responds to specific instruction pipelines and cache hierarchy designs, and the data indicates the Arrow Lake architecture handles this particular calculation pattern far more efficiently despite its overall lower benchmark average.

PassMark floating point math shows a narrow 4% win for the Core 9 273PQE (125546 versus 120735), while PassMark physics shows a 9% lead (2754 versus 2526). The extended instructions test gives the Core 9 273PQE a 24.1% advantage (38743 versus 31212), and random string sorting shows an 11.7% lead (53167 versus 47616). Single-thread performance is close, with the Core 9 273PQE ahead by just 2.1% (4573 versus 4481), indicating that per-core efficiency is broadly similar, but the Core 9 273PQE’s higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 5.10 GHz provides the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 245HX has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has no recorded transistor or die size data, which limits direct comparison of physical scaling.

Core topology differs significantly. The Core 9 273PQE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support, whereas the Core Ultra 5 245HX provides 14 cores and 14 threads with no SMT. Despite having fewer physical cores, the Core 9 273PQE’s SMT capability gives it 24 logical processors, which explains its consistent multi-threaded benchmark dominance.

Cache hierarchy shows contrasting designs. The Core 9 273PQE offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 245HX provides larger per-core caches at 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but a smaller 24 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L3 pool on the Core 9 273PQE likely benefits workloads with large working sets, while the per-core L1 advantage on the Core Ultra 5 245HX may explain its strong prime-number performance.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 245HX supports only DDR5 but achieves 102.4 GB/s bandwidth on the same dual-channel configuration. The higher memory bandwidth on the mobile part is notable given its lower TDP, suggesting a more modern memory controller design.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 9 273PQE but absent on the Core Ultra 5 245HX. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Core 9 273PQE offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only) versus the Core Ultra 5 245HX’s Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 273PQE carries UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice for compute-intensive threaded workloads. Its 24 threads and 36 MB L3 cache deliver decisive advantages in integer math, data compression, and all Cinebench multi-core tests. The 78.7% integer math lead and 49% data compression lead indicate strong performance for compilation, scientific computing, and file archiving tasks. The 21.1% multi-core advantage across Cinebench versions reinforces this pattern for rendering and video encoding workloads.

The Core 9 273PQE also wins single-threaded comparisons, though by smaller margins. The 2.1% single-thread lead and 21.1% single-core Cinebench lead suggest it handles latency-sensitive applications slightly better, aided by its 5.90 GHz boost clock versus 5.10 GHz. The 24.1% extended instructions lead points to better SIMD and specialized instruction execution, which benefits cryptography, multimedia processing, and certain scientific simulations.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins in two specific scenarios. The 44.8% prime-number finding advantage indicates its architecture excels at integer factorization and related number-theoretic workloads, possibly due to its larger per-core L1 cache and more efficient branch prediction. The 1.3% data encryption win, while small, suggests its crypto instruction throughput is marginally better, possibly benefiting from the 3 nm process node’s improved transistor characteristics.

For mobile deployments, the Core Ultra 5 245HX’s 55 W TDP versus 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE makes it the only viable option in thermally constrained environments. The data does not record power efficiency metrics, but the TDP spread alone indicates the mobile part operates at less than half the power envelope, which carries implications for battery life and cooling requirements in portable systems.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX |

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

| Cores | 12 | 14 |

| Threads | 24 | 14 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.90 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-HX |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| 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 | 24 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 only |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC support | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-12 |

The Core 9 273PQE also has 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size recorded for the Core Ultra 5 245HX only, while the Core 9 273PQE lacks these entries. The Core Ultra 5 245HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture designation, while the Core 9 273PQE has no recorded architecture field. The Core Ultra 5 245HX belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 9 273PQE has no series designation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 24 threads from 12 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has 14 threads from 14 cores. The Core 9 273PQE supports simultaneous multithreading, the Core Ultra 5 245HX does not.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 32358 for the Core Ultra 5 245HX, a 21.1% advantage. This same 21.1% delta appears across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests for both single-core and multi-core.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 245HX win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two of 17 head-to-head tests. It scores 30022 in PassMark data encryption versus 29636 for the Core 9 273PQE (1.3% lead), and scores 359 in PassMark find prime numbers versus 198 (44.8% lead).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth on a dual-channel bus. The Core Ultra 5 245HX supports only DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth on a dual-channel bus.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop platforms, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114 for mobile platforms. The market segments differ: Desktop versus Mobile.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX boosts to 5.10 GHz. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz and 3.10 GHz respectively.

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the Intel Core 9 273PQE as the superior performer in nearly every recorded workload. Its 15 wins out of 17 comparisons, including a 78.7% lead in integer math and consistent 21.1% leads across all Cinebench tests, make it the appropriate choice for desktop users prioritizing raw compute throughput. The 125 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 platform confirm it targets full-size desktop systems where power delivery and cooling are not limiting factors. The 36 MB L3 cache and 24 threads provide a substantial margin for multi-threaded applications such as rendering, compilation, and data processing.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX serves a different purpose entirely. Its 55 W TDP, BGA 2114 socket, and mobile market segment indicate it belongs in laptops and portable workstations. The 3 nm process node and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth demonstrate a more modern fabrication technology, yet the data shows this does not translate into benchmark superiority in most tests. The two notable wins, prime number finding and data encryption, suggest specific algorithmic niches where its architecture excels, but these are narrow workloads.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX sits at the 90th. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099 versus 48287 for the Core Ultra 5 245HX, a difference of approximately 37%. In the nearest rivals comparison, the Core 9 273PQE trades within 1.2% of CPUs like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX trades within 0.7% of the Intel Core i5-14600K and AMD EPYC 4345P.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum compute capability from these two specific parts, the data unequivocally supports the Core 9 273PQE. For a mobile user requiring the same Intel platform with lower power draw and a different physical package, the Core Ultra 5 245HX is the only option, and its benchmark profile remains competitive for a 55 W part. The choice between them is fundamentally a question of platform and power envelope, because on raw performance the Core 9 273PQE wins decisively.