Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the Intel Core 9 273PQE represent two distinct philosophies for desktop processing, yet their overall benchmark averages are remarkably close. The Ultra 5 250K Plus posts an average benchmark score of 66,855, while the Core 9 273PQE achieves 66,099, a gap of just over one percent. This near-parity in overall standing, despite wildly different component configurations, makes the head-to-head results particularly revealing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a clear split in workload preferences. The Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 12 of the 17 benchmark comparisons, but the Core 9 273PQE takes the most dramatic victories. The single-core Cinebench results are striking: the Core 9 273PQE leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 41.1% (557 vs 328) and in Cinebench R23 single-core by a massive 59.1% (5,532 vs 2,261). These are not small margins; they indicate a fundamental difference in how each chip handles lightly-threaded tasks.

However, the multi-core picture is more complex. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 250K Plus wins by 17.5% (4,640 vs 3,950). In R20 multi-core, it again takes the lead with a 12% advantage (18,442 vs 16,459). Yet in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE flips the script, winning by 21.2% (39,190 vs 30,867). This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests the two processors scale differently under sustained loads or with varying thread counts.

PassMark results further delineate the strengths. The Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates in several specialized areas. Its lead in PassMark find prime numbers is astronomical at 145.5% (486 vs 198). It also shows strong advantages in data encryption (42.2% ahead, 42,144 vs 29,636), floating point math (29.6%, 162,692 vs 125,546), and random string sorting (29.9%, 69,090 vs 53,167). The physics test also favors the Ultra 5 by 26.9% (3,494 vs 2,754).

The Core 9 273PQE counters with wins in integer math, where it is 24% ahead (164,629 vs 125,091), and data compression, where it leads by 2.9% (585,752 vs 568,721). It also wins the single-threaded PassMark tests, though by a much narrower 4% margin (4,757 vs 4,573). The Core 9’s single-thread PassMark score of 4,573 is surprisingly close to the Ultra 5’s 4,757, considering the huge gap in Cinebench R23 single-core. This suggests that the two benchmarks measure different aspects of single-thread performance.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain these divergent results. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on Arrow Lake Refresh, using a 3 nm TSMC process node. It contains 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache structure includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. It also features 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

The Core 9 273PQE, in contrast, is based on Bartlett Lake, using Intel’s 10 nm process. It has 12 cores but 24 threads, indicating hyper-threading support that the Ultra 5 lacks. Its clocks are lower at base (3.40 GHz) but higher at boost (5.90 GHz). Cache sizes are smaller per core (80 KB L1, 2 MB L2) but larger in shared L3 at 36 MB. Notably, the Core 9 lacks listed transistor and die size data in the fact pack.

These differences are profound. The Ultra 5’s 3 nm process and 18 physical cores suggest a design focused on parallel throughput with efficient power use. The Core 9’s 10 nm process and 12 cores with 24 threads, combined with a higher boost clock, point to a design that maximizes single-thread potential and multi-threading flexibility. The Core 9 also supports DDR4 memory in addition to DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth differs too: the Ultra 5 has 115.2 GB/s, while the Core 9 has 89.6 GB/s.

Another key difference is the integrated graphics. The Ultra 5 features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU, while the Core 9 has UHD Graphics 770. Socket compatibility also diverges: the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, and the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 5 has 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 9 has 16. The Ultra 5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 9’s is locked.

The Verdict

The data suggests that the Ultra 5 250K Plus is the more versatile processor for general and parallel workloads. Its 12 benchmark wins, including dominant showings in encryption, floating point math, and prime number finding, indicate a strong capability for scientific computing, cryptography, and any task that can leverage many physical cores. Its higher memory bandwidth and larger number of cores support this interpretation.

The Core 9 273PQE, however, is the clear choice for single-thread-intensive applications. Its massive leads in Cinebench R23 single-core (59.1%) and R15 single-core (41.1%) are the largest margins in the entire comparison. For users running older software, lightly-threaded games, or workloads that rely on a single fast core, the Core 9’s 5.90 GHz boost clock is a decisive advantage. Its win in integer math also suggests strength in certain database or logic-heavy tasks.

The overall average scores are nearly identical, placing both at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 250K Plus sits slightly ahead in average score, with its nearest rival being the Intel Xeon 6515P (deltaPct -0.2%). The Core 9 273PQE’s nearest rival is the Ultra 5 250K Plus itself, with a deltaPct of -1.1%. This confirms that, on aggregate, they are peers. The choice hinges entirely on workload profile, not on overall capability.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 4.20 GHz vs 3.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.30 GHz vs 5.90 GHz. The Ultra 5 uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while the Core 9 uses Intel’s 10 nm. Cache configurations are markedly different: L1 is 192 KB per core vs 80 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core vs 2 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared vs 36 MB shared.

Memory support differs, with the Ultra 5 supporting only DDR5 and the Core 9 supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 5 at 115.2 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 20 on the Ultra 5 vs 16 on the Core 9. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs UHD Graphics 770. Socket types are Intel Socket 1851 vs Intel Socket 1700. The Ultra 5 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 9 does not. The Ultra 5’s launch MSRP is $199, while the Core 9’s is $589.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores. However, the Core 9 273PQE has 24 threads versus 18 threads on the Ultra 5.

Q: Which processor is better for single-threaded performance?

A: Based on Cinebench R23 single-core scores, the Intel Core 9 273PQE is significantly better, scoring 5,532 compared to the Ultra 5’s 2,261, a 59.1% advantage.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth numbers compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the Intel Core 9 273PQE have ECC memory support listed in their specifications.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor can be overclocked?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, indicating overclocking capability. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a locked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the benchmark data. The Ultra 5 250K Plus is the winner for tasks that involve heavy parallel computation. Its 145.5% lead in prime number finding and 42.2% lead in data encryption point to workloads in cryptography, scientific simulation, and mathematical modeling. The 29.6% advantage in floating point math is relevant for 3D rendering, scientific calculations, and any numerical analysis. The 29.9% lead in random string sorting suggests strength in certain data processing and indexing tasks.

The Core 9 273PQE is the winner for single-thread-limited scenarios. Its 59.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the obvious choice for older games that rely on one or two threads, or for software that cannot utilize many cores. The 24% lead in integer math could benefit certain database operations, financial calculations, or legacy applications. Its win in data compression, albeit by a slim 2.9%, gives it a small edge in archiving and file compression tasks.

For a mixed workload, the Ultra 5’s 11.9% lead in PassMark multithread and its wins in physics (26.9%) make it a more balanced all-rounder. Its higher memory bandwidth and support for DDR5 only, combined with its lower launch MSRP of $199, make it a compelling choice for a new desktop build. The Core 9 273PQE, with its higher boost clock and thread count, is a niche part for users who prioritize peak single-core speed above all else, despite its higher launch MSRP of $589. The data ultimately shows two very different tools that happen to land at the same overall performance level.