Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H?

A: The Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 336H averages 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile.

Q: Where does the Core Ultra 5 336H manage to beat the Core 9 273PQE?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H wins only in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 299 versus 198 for the Core 9 273PQE. That is a 33.8% advantage for the Ultra 5 in that specific integer workload.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor according to the database?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits within 1.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, AMD EPYC 4465P, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core Ultra 5 336H sits within 0.8% of the Intel Core i7-13700HX, Intel Core i5-13450HX, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 350.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, which is 63.4% higher than the Core Ultra 5 336H’s 23991. This is the largest Cinebench margin recorded between the two.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Core 9 273PQE?

A: The launch MSRP is $589. The Core Ultra 5 336H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 9 273PQE for desktop workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput and high single-core speed. With 24 threads, a 5.90 GHz boost clock, and a 93rd percentile standing, it outclasses the Core Ultra 5 336H in rendering, encryption, compression, and floating-point math by margins ranging from 2.7% to 165.2%. The Core Ultra 5 336H, with 16 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and an 84th percentile standing, is a mobile-oriented part. Its only head-to-head victory is in prime number finding, a narrow niche. Benchmark results indicate that anyone prioritizing raw compute should choose the Core 9 273PQE. The Core Ultra 5 336H remains relevant only for workloads where its specific prime-number performance or its mobile form factor matters more than overall throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 9 273PQE dominates across nearly every recorded test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3950 versus 2418, a 63.4% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 63.3% gap, 557 versus 341. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 16459 versus 10076, again 63.3%. R20 single-core is 2323 versus 1422, a 63.4% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 39190 versus 23991, 63.4% higher. R23 single-core is 5532 versus 3387, 63.3% higher.

PassMark results widen the gap further in several tests. Data compression shows 585752 versus 280340, a 108.9% advantage for the Core 9 273PQE. Integer math is the largest single delta: 164629 versus 62070, a 165.2% lead. Floating-point math scores 125546 versus 82415, 52.3% higher. Extended instructions deliver 38743 versus 24542, a 57.9% margin. Data encryption is 29636 versus 21291, 39.2% higher. Random string sorting scores 53167 versus 34402, a 54.5% lead. Multithread performance is 46107 versus 28545, 61.5% higher. Single-thread PassMark is closer but still decisive: 4573 versus 4013, a 14% gap.

Physics is the narrowest Core 9 victory: 2754 versus 2682, just 2.7% apart. The lone Ultra 5 win is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 299 versus 198, a 33.8% advantage. The Core 9 273PQE wins 16 benchmarks; the Core Ultra 5 336H wins only that one.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is 125 watts for the Core 9, versus 25 watts for the Ultra 5. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 9, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra 5.

Cache structures are distinct. The Core 9 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth is higher for the Ultra 5 at 115.2 GB/s, versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. ECC memory is supported by the Core 9 but not by the Ultra 5. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 5 has Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9, Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 5. The Core 9 is a desktop part; the Ultra 5 is mobile. Both have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. It is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, on Intel’s 3 nm process node. Both are built by Intel, but the process nodes are generations apart. The Core 9 relies on 12 cores with hyper-threading to reach 24 threads. The Ultra 5 has 16 physical cores but no hyper-threading, giving it exactly 16 threads. The L1 cache per core is larger on the Ultra 5 (192 KB versus 80 KB), as is L2 (2.5 MB versus 2 MB). The Core 9 has double the shared L3: 36 MB versus 18 MB. The Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Ultra 5’s memory bandwidth advantage (115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) does not translate into benchmark wins, as the Core 9’s higher clocks and thread count dominate in the recorded tests. The Core 9’s ECC support and larger L3 suggest a server-adjacent design, while the Ultra 5’s lower TDP and BGA socket point to a power-constrained mobile platform.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in multi-threaded rendering: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores are all 63.3% to 63.4% higher. It also wins in single-core Cinebench tests by the same margins. For data-heavy workloads, the Core 9 leads strongly: data compression is 108.9% higher, integer math is 165.2% higher, and floating-point math is 52.3% higher. Encryption is 39.2% higher. Extended instructions are 57.9% higher. Random string sorting is 54.5% higher. Multithread PassMark is 61.5% higher. Single-thread PassMark is 14% higher. Physics is nearly a tie, but the Core 9 still edges ahead by 2.7%.

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins only in PassMark find prime numbers, with a 33.8% advantage. That test measures a specific integer operation where the Ultra 5’s architecture, likely its larger L1 and L2 per core, provides an edge. The Ultra 5 also holds advantages in memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) and process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), but those do not appear in the recorded benchmark wins. The Core 9 273PQE is the choice for compute-heavy tasks, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is suited to workloads that stress prime-number finding or require its mobile platform characteristics.