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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the Intel Core 9 273PQE are two desktop processors that, despite their different naming tiers, land nearly on top of each other in aggregate performance. The data shows the Ultra 5 250KF Plus holds a razor-thin 0.1% lead in average benchmark score (66159 vs. 66099), placing both at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. This near-parity makes the comparison a study in workload-specific strengths rather than a straightforward hierarchy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the Ultra 5 250KF Plus’s dominance across Cinebench tests. It wins all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks by a consistent 9% margin. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 42718 against the Core 9’s 39190, while the single-core result is 6030 versus 5532. This uniform 9% delta across both single- and multi-threaded rendering workloads suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a core-count effect.

The Ultra 5’s lead extends into several PassMark sub-tests with particularly large margins. The standout is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 452 against the Core 9’s 198 — a 128.3% advantage. Floating point math also heavily favors the Ultra 5 (159824 vs. 125546, up 27.3%), as does random string sorting (67209 vs. 53167, up 26.4%). Data encryption shows a 39.3% gap (41292 vs. 29636), and extended instructions come in at 10.7% ahead (42880 vs. 38743). Physics simulation favors the Ultra 5 by 15.6% (3183 vs. 2754), and PassMark multithread shows an 8.8% edge (50146 vs. 46107).

The Core 9 273PQE, however, is not without its own victories. It wins PassMark integer math decisively, scoring 164629 against the Ultra 5’s 123030 — a 25.3% advantage. It also takes data compression, posting 585752 versus 553155, a 5.6% lead. These two wins show that the Core 9’s 24 threads (versus 18 on the Ultra 5) can be leveraged effectively in specific integer-heavy and compression-oriented tasks, even though the Ultra 5 counters with superior results in most other throughput tests.

Single-thread performance is close but still favors the Ultra 5. PassMark single thread shows 4698 vs. 4573, a 2.7% edge. This smaller delta in a purely single-core test, compared to the 9% Cinebench single-core gap, indicates that the Ultra 5’s advantage grows when the workload scales across its cores. The overall tally is 15 wins for the Ultra 5 and 2 for the Core 9, but the margin in average scores (0.1%) shows that the Core 9’s two victories come in tests that carry significant weight in the aggregate.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced choice. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the better pick for users whose workloads mirror Cinebench rendering, encryption, floating-point math, or physics simulation. Its 9% lead across all Cinebench versions and its 39.3% encryption advantage make it the stronger all-around compute engine in most productivity scenarios. The 128.3% gap in prime number finding further underscores its mathematical throughput superiority.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the better pick for integer math and data compression workloads specifically. Its 25.3% lead in integer math and 5.6% lead in compression are substantial — for users running compression tools or integer-heavy scientific code, the Core 9 will finish those jobs quicker. Its 24 threads provide a clear advantage in these parallel integer tasks, even though it loses the multithread PassMark test overall.

For mixed workloads, the Ultra 5’s 15-2 win count and its lead in PassMark multithread (8.8%) make it the safer default recommendation. The Core 9’s wins are real but narrow in scope, and its overall average score is essentially tied with the Ultra 5 despite those targeted strengths. Users who prioritize integer math and compression above all else should choose the Core 9; everyone else gets more consistent performance from the Ultra 5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel design lineages. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, while the Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process. This node difference explains much of the performance gap: the 3 nm process allows the Ultra 5 to achieve higher efficiency and clock speeds per watt, which shows up in its consistent Cinebench wins.

Core counts are configured differently. The Ultra 5 has 18 cores and 18 threads (no hyperthreading), whereas the Core 9 has 12 cores and 24 threads, using hyperthreading to double thread count. The Ultra 5 compensates with 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, while the Core 9 has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. The Core 9 has more shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus the Ultra 5’s 30 MB, likely aiding its integer and compression performance.

The Ultra 5’s transistor count is listed at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 9’s transistor count and die size are not provided in the data. The Ultra 5 is a TSMC-built part, while the Core 9 is from Intel’s own foundry. These manufacturing differences are fundamental to why the Ultra 5 achieves higher clock speeds despite having more physical cores.

Feature-wise, the Ultra 5 includes an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Core 9 is locked. The Ultra 5 also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, whereas the Core 9 has 16 lanes. Memory bandwidth differs significantly: the Ultra 5 supports 115.2 GB/s versus the Core 9’s 89.6 GB/s, a 28.6% advantage that likely contributes to its floating-point and encryption wins.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds tell a story of trade-offs. The Ultra 5 has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, but the Core 9 has a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. The Ultra 5’s higher base clock helps sustained multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 9’s higher boost clock aids bursty single-thread tasks, though the benchmark data shows the Ultra 5 still wins single-core tests.

Both processors are rated at 125 W TDP, so power draw is identical on paper. They use different sockets: the Ultra 5 requires Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700. This is a critical compatibility difference for system builders. The Ultra 5 has no integrated graphics, while the Core 9 includes UHD Graphics 770, making the Core 9 usable without a discrete GPU.

Memory support differs as well. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only, while the Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both are dual-channel and support ECC memory. The Ultra 5’s higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs. 89.6 GB/s) likely explains its edge in memory-sensitive benchmarks like random string sorting (26.4% ahead).

The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184, and for the Core 9 273PQE it is $589. The Ultra 5 was released on 2026-03-10, while the Core 9 came out on 2026-03-08, just two days earlier. Both are marked as Active production status. The Ultra 5’s part number is SA4V3, while the Core 9’s is SA4Q9.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average benchmark score of 66159, which is 0.1% higher than the Intel Core 9 273PQE’s 66099. Both sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How big is the gap in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 42718 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190. This represents a 9% advantage for the Ultra 5.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 9 273PQE is significantly faster?

A: Yes. The Core 9 273PQE wins PassMark integer math by 25.3% (164629 vs. 123030) and PassMark data compression by 5.6% (585752 vs. 553155). These are its two wins out of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the Intel Core 9 273PQE support ECC memory. Both also use dual-channel memory configurations.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700. They are not socket-compatible with each other.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Core 9 can run without a discrete GPU, but the Ultra 5 cannot.