Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average score of 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile. The Core 9 273PQE outperforms the Core Ultra 5 338H by roughly 94% in average score.

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The only test where the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes the win is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 304 versus 198.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark advantage for either processor?

A: The largest advantage belongs to the Intel Core 9 273PQE in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5532 against 2044, a delta of 170.6%. The Core 9 273PQE also leads by 153.5% in PassMark integer math and by 140% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: Are both processors built on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. Its base clock is also higher at 3.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile part based on Panther Lake. The process nodes differ significantly: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel's 10 nm process, whereas the Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process. Despite the smaller node on the mobile chip, the desktop processor delivers far higher performance in the recorded benchmarks.

Both processors have 12 cores, but the thread counts diverge. The Core 9 273PQE supports 24 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading, while the Core Ultra 5 338H supports 12 threads, one per core. Cache configurations also differ. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The desktop chip has double the shared L3 capacity.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel operation and a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel operation and a higher recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. ECC memory is available on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Core Ultra 5 338H.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, and the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370. The desktop chip uses Intel Socket 1700, while the mobile chip uses Intel BGA 2540. The power envelope is markedly different, with the Core 9 273PQE rated at 125 W TDP versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 5 338H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE, but the margin varies substantially across workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 against 16331, a 140% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 61.2% lead, with scores of 16459 versus 10213. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 57.7% lead, with scores of 3950 versus 2504.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PQE leads by 170.6%, scoring 5532 versus 2044. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 61.2% advantage, with scores of 2323 versus 1441. Cinebench R15 single-core shows an 82.6% advantage, with scores of 557 versus 305. PassMark single-thread shows a smaller 9.4% lead, with scores of 4573 versus 4180.

Integer and floating-point workloads reinforce the desktop chip's dominance. PassMark integer math shows the Core 9 273PQE at 164629 versus 64934, a 153.5% lead. PassMark floating-point math shows 125546 versus 84067, a 49.3% lead. PassMark extended instructions show 38743 versus 23906, a 62.1% lead. Data compression also favors the Core 9 273PQE heavily: 585752 versus 276539, a 111.8% lead. Data encryption shows a 38.7% lead, with scores of 29636 versus 21367.

Multithreaded performance follows the same direction. PassMark multithread shows 46107 versus 28717, a 60.6% lead. Random string sorting shows 53167 versus 34082, a 56% lead. The closest multi-core result is PassMark physics, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 2754 versus 2697, a 2.1% lead.

The single recorded win for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 304 against 198, a 34.9% advantage. That result indicates a specific workload where the mobile chip's architecture holds an edge, but it is the only such case in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and Intel Core Ultra 5 338H differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The desktop chip has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the mobile chip has 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP is 125 W versus 25 W. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540.

Cache allocations differ in both per-core and shared structures. L1 is 80 KB per core on the Core 9 273PQE versus 192 KB per core on the Core Ultra 5 338H. L2 is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the desktop chip, LPDDR5X for the mobile chip. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 136.5 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 9 273PQE and absent on the Core Ultra 5 338H. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 4, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc B370. The process node is 10 nm versus 3 nm. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has no recorded launch MSRP. The release dates differ by about two months, with the Core Ultra 5 338H released earlier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins across almost every recorded workload. Its largest advantages appear in Cinebench R23 single-core, PassMark integer math, and Cinebench R23 multi-core, with leads of 170.6%, 153.5%, and 140% respectively. It also leads by more than 100% in PassMark data compression at 111.8%. These results indicate strong performance in rendering, integer-heavy processing, and compression tasks. The desktop chip also holds a comfortable edge in floating-point math, extended instructions, multithreaded workloads, and random string sorting, with leads ranging from 49.3% to 62.1%. Even in the closest multi-core test, PassMark physics, it leads by 2.1%. Its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the 84th percentile for the mobile chip, reflects this broad dominance.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins only the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it scores 304 versus 198. That 34.9% advantage points to a specific algorithmic strength in prime-number searching. The mobile chip also carries advantages in non-performance specifications: it uses a 3 nm process, offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s, and consumes far less power at 25 W TDP. Its L1 and L2 per-core caches are larger, and its integrated Arc B370 graphics differ from the UHD Graphics 770 on the desktop part. For workloads that depend on prime-number generation, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the better pick. For everything else in the recorded data, the Core 9 273PQE leads.

The Verdict

The recorded data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the superior processor in nearly every measured workload. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 94% advantage in average benchmark score, and ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core, 140% and 170.6%, make it the stronger choice for rendering and single-threaded performance. Its 153.5% lead in integer math and 111.8% lead in data compression reinforce that conclusion for compute-heavy and data-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is not without merits, but they lie outside raw benchmark dominance. It wins the prime-number search test by 34.9%, which indicates a specialized strength. It operates at 25 W TDP, uses a 3 nm process, and provides 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth, all of which are meaningful for mobile or low-power systems. Its per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger, and its Arc B370 integrated graphics differ from the UHD Graphics 770 on the desktop part.

For users selecting between these two, the decision depends on the workload and platform. The Core 9 273PQE suits desktop systems where maximum multi-core throughput, single-core speed, and memory capacity are priorities. The Core Ultra 5 338H suits mobile systems where power efficiency, prime-number computation, and higher memory bandwidth matter more. The benchmark record, however, is unambiguous: the Core 9 273PQE wins the overwhelming majority of tests and does so by wide margins.