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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 54053. The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 91st percentile for the Core Ultra 5 245K.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in most multi-threaded tests. It posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 versus 25066 for the Core Ultra 5 245K, a 56.3% advantage. In PassMark multithread, the Core 9 273PQE scores 46107 against 43047, a 7.1% lead.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The results are split. The Core 9 273PQE wins Cinebench R23 single-core by a wide margin, 5532 versus 2132, a 159.5% difference. However, the Core Ultra 5 245K takes PassMark single-thread with 4714 versus 4573, a 3% edge.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core 9 273PQE uses simultaneous multithreading, while the Core Ultra 5 245K does not.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245K is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 245K boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 245K has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K represent two different design directions. The Core 9 273PQE is based on the Bartlett Lake architecture and uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 245K uses the Arrow Lake architecture (codename Arrow Lake-S) and is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm node with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm².

Core topology differs significantly. The Core 9 273PQE packs 12 cores with 24 threads, relying on hyperthreading to double thread count. The Core Ultra 5 245K has 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multithreading. Despite fewer cores, the Core Ultra 5 245K has larger per-core caches: 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, versus 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core on the Core 9 273PQE. The Core 9 273PQE compensates with a larger shared L3 cache of 36 MB, compared to 24 MB on the Core Ultra 5 245K.

Clock behavior is inverted. The Core 9 273PQE runs a 3.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 245K starts higher at 4.20 GHz base but boosts lower to 5.20 GHz. Both processors carry a 125 W TDP.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 245K supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Platform requirements differ. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 5 245K uses Intel Socket 1851 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 273PQE has UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 5 245K has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 5 245K has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 9 273PQE does not.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two distinct roles. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the stronger multi-threaded and compute-heavy part. It wins 10 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and carries a launch MSRP of $589. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 is 56.3% ahead of the Core Ultra 5 245K, and its PassMark integer math score of 164629 is 67.1% higher. The Core 9 273PQE also dominates Cinebench R23 single-core with a 159.5% margin, which is an unusually large gap.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, with a launch MSRP of $319, counters in specific workloads. It wins PassMark single-thread by 3%, PassMark physics by 10.6%, PassMark floating point math by 3.9%, PassMark find prime numbers by 52.2%, PassMark random string sorting by 3.5%, and PassMark data encryption by 11%. Its higher base clock and newer 3 nm process likely contribute to these targeted wins, though the database does not specify the exact cause.

For users whose workloads resemble Cinebench multi-thread, integer math, data compression, or extended instructions, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice. For workloads resembling encryption, prime number finding, floating point math, physics simulation, or random string sorting, the Core Ultra 5 245K is the better fit. The average benchmark score strongly favors the Core 9 273PQE: 66099 versus 54053.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field.

• Cores: 12 (Core 9 273PQE) versus 14 (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Threads: 24 (Core 9 273PQE) versus 14 (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Base clock: 3.40 GHz (Core 9 273PQE) versus 4.20 GHz (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Boost clock: 5.90 GHz (Core 9 273PQE) versus 5.20 GHz (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (Core 9 273PQE) versus Intel Socket 1851 (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (Core 9 273PQE) versus Arrow Lake-S (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Process node: 10 nm, Intel foundry (Core 9 273PQE) versus 3 nm, TSMC foundry (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Transistors: not listed (Core 9 273PQE) versus 17,800 million (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Die size: not listed (Core 9 273PQE) versus 243 mm² (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (Core 9 273PQE) versus 192 KB per core (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Core 9 273PQE) versus 3 MB per core (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared (Core 9 273PQE) versus 24 MB shared (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 (Core 9 273PQE) versus DDR5 only (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (Core 9 273PQE) versus 102.4 GB/s (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• PCIe lanes: Gen 5, 16 lanes (Core 9 273PQE) versus Gen 5, 20 lanes (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 (Core 9 273PQE) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Multiplier unlocked: false (Core 9 273PQE) versus true (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Release date: 2026-03-08 (Core 9 273PQE) versus 2024-10-23 (Core Ultra 5 245K)
• Launch MSRP: $589 (Core 9 273PQE) versus $319 (Core Ultra 5 245K)

Both processors share a 125 W TDP, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, and active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the Core 9 273PQE with dominant multi-core performance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3950 against 3850, a 2.6% margin. The gap grows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 16459 versus 15368, a 7.1% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the largest multi-threaded gap: 39190 versus 25066, a 56.3% difference.

Single-core Cinebench results are even more lopsided. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 versus 322, a 73% margin. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2323 versus 2169, a 7.1% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5532 versus 2132, a 159.5% margin. These are the largest wins for the Core 9 273PQE in the entire dataset.

PassMark tests reveal a more balanced picture. The Core 9 273PQE wins data compression with 585752 versus 458817, a 27.7% margin. It wins extended instructions with 38743 versus 37617, a 3% margin. It wins integer math with 164629 versus 98524, a 67.1% margin. It wins multithread with 46107 versus 43047, a 7.1% margin.

The Core Ultra 5 245K takes the remaining PassMark tests. Data encryption goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 33286 versus 29636, an 11% margin. Find prime numbers goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 414 versus 198, a 52.2% margin. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 130678 versus 125546, a 3.9% margin. Physics goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 3081 versus 2754, a 10.6% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 55098 versus 53167, a 3.5% margin. Single-thread goes to the Core Ultra 5 245K, 4714 versus 4573, a 3% margin, and the duplicate singlethread entry confirms the same result.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in rendering and compute-heavy integer workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 is 56.3% ahead, and its PassMark integer math score of 164629 is 67.1% ahead. Data compression shows a 27.7% advantage, and extended instructions show a 3% advantage. These results indicate a processor built for sustained multi-threaded throughput, likely aided by its 24 threads and 36 MB L3 cache.

The Core Ultra 5 245K wins in encryption, prime number calculation, floating point math, physics, random string sorting, and PassMark single-thread. Its data encryption score of 33286 is 11% higher. Its find prime numbers score of 414 is 52.2% higher, the largest win for this processor. Floating point math scores 130678, a 3.9% margin. Physics scores 3081, a 10.6% margin. Random string sorting scores 55098, a 3.5% margin. PassMark single-thread scores 4714, a 3% margin.

The win pattern suggests the Core Ultra 5 245K is stronger in latency-sensitive and branch-heavy workloads, despite its lower thread count. Its 14 cores, larger per-core caches, and higher base clock of 4.20 GHz likely support these results. The Core 9 273PQE counters with higher boost clocks and double the thread count, which drives its wins in throughput-oriented tests.

The average benchmark score favors the Core 9 273PQE overall, 66099 versus 54053, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (a 0.3% difference). The Core Ultra 5 245K sits closer to the Intel Core i7-14700F at 53620 (a 0.8% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54762 (a 1.3% difference). The data places the Core 9 273PQE in a higher performance tier, while the Core Ultra 5 245K remains competitive in specific algorithmic tasks.