Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 9 273PQE compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 155HL in overall performance ranking?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 66099. The Core Ultra 7 155HL ranks at the 50th percentile, and the database currently holds no averaged benchmark score for it.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses 16 cores and 22 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, which is substantially higher than the Core Ultra 7 155HL's 4.80 GHz boost.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 with capacity depending on the motherboard.

Q: Which processor uses a newer socket?

A: The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the newer Intel Socket 1851.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying designs. The Core 9 273PQE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses the Meteor Lake architecture on a 7 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference indicates a different generation of fabrication technology.

The Core 9 273PQE belongs to the Core 9 generation line, whereas the Core Ultra 7 155HL is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename family. This places them in different product tiers and architectural generations within Intel's lineup.

Cache organization also differs. The Core 9 273PQE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 155HL provides more L1 cache at 112 KB per core, the same 2 MB of L2 per core, but less shared L3 at 24 MB. The larger L3 pool on the Core 9 273PQE may benefit workloads that rely on frequent data reuse across cores.

Memory support shows a clear divergence. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL supports DDR5 only, with capacity dependent on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses with identical peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Core Ultra 7 155HL.

PCIe capabilities differ across generations. The Core 9 273PQE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL offers Gen 4 with only 8 lanes from the CPU. This affects potential bandwidth for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Arc Xe-LPG with 128 execution units. The release dates place the Core Ultra 7 155HL in April 2024 and the Core 9 273PQE in March 2026, roughly two years apart in market availability.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE is the clear performance leader in the database. It has a 93rd percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL sits at the 50th percentile. The benchmark data confirms that the Core 9 273PQE dominates in multi-threaded workloads, single-threaded workloads, and specialized computational tasks.

The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, which gives it a 1:2 core-to-thread ratio. The Core Ultra 7 155HL uses more physical cores at 16, but only 22 threads, indicating a heterogeneous core arrangement where some cores lack hyper-threading. Despite the Core Ultra 7's higher core count, the Core 9's higher clock speeds and newer architecture allow it to win most performance comparisons.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL wins in power efficiency. Its 45-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Core 9 273PQE's 125-watt TDP. For scenarios where thermal output and energy consumption matter more than raw throughput, the Core Ultra 7 has the advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL also offers a more capable integrated GPU with Arc Xe-LPG 128EU, which may handle graphics tasks better than the UHD Graphics 770 found in the Core 9 273PQE. However, the database contains no direct graphics benchmark results for either processor, so this remains an architectural observation rather than a measured outcome.

The Core 9 273PQE wins on memory flexibility with support for both DDR4 and DDR5, plus ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 7 155HL is limited to DDR5 and lacks ECC support.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every major specification field. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL has 16 cores and 22 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 3.40 GHz versus 1.40 GHz. Boost clocks differ as well: 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

TDP presents one of the largest gaps. The Core 9 273PQE draws 125 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL draws only 45 watts. This has implications for cooling requirements and system power supplies.

The socket types are incompatible. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL uses Intel Socket 1851. A motherboard designed for one will not accept the other.

Cache configurations differ in L1 and L3. The Core 9 273PQE offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 155HL offers 112 KB of L1 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. Both offer 2 MB of L2 per core.

Memory support differs in type and ECC capability. The Core 9 273PQE accepts DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC support, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL accepts DDR5 only without ECC. Both use dual-channel configurations with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

PCIe generation and lane counts differ. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9 273PQE versus Arc Xe-LPG 128EU on the Core Ultra 7 155HL. The process nodes differ: 10 nm for the Core 9 273PQE and 7 nm for the Core Ultra 7 155HL.

The launch MSRP differs, with the Core 9 273PQE at $589 and the Core Ultra 7 155HL at $438. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an officially supported feature for either.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Core 9 273PQE and the Core Ultra 7 155HL. The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no recorded benchmark scores at all, and the head-to-head results field is empty.

Despite the absence of direct comparisons, the Core 9 273PQE's benchmark results provide a detailed picture of its capabilities. In Cinebench R23, it scores 39190 in multi-core and 5532 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 16459 multi-core and 2323 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 3950 multi-core and 557 single-core.

PassMark results for the Core 9 273PQE show strong performance across a range of tasks. It scores 164629 in integer math, 125546 in floating point math, 46107 in multithread, and 4573 in single-thread. Data compression reaches 585752, data encryption reaches 29636, extended instructions reach 38743, find prime numbers reaches 198, physics reaches 2754, and random string sorting reaches 53167.

The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. It sits at 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, 0.1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, 1.1% behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and 1.2% behind the AMD EPYC 4465P. These margin figures indicate that the Core 9 273PQE competes directly with some of the strongest CPUs in the database, falling within a narrow band of performance.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL has no benchmark records and no nearest rivals listed in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all CPUs, but without measured scores, the exact magnitude of its performance relative to the Core 9 273PQE cannot be quantified from the data.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward performance hierarchy. The Core 9 273PQE ranks at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66099. The Core Ultra 7 155HL ranks at the 50th percentile with no recorded average score. Any workload that depends on raw CPU throughput will favor the Core 9 273PQE.

The Core 9 273PQE offers higher boost clocks, more threads, larger L3 cache, ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. These features make it suitable for compute-heavy desktop workloads where performance is the priority.

The Core Ultra 7 155HL offers a significantly lower TDP of 45 watts, more physical cores, a 7 nm process node, and a more advanced integrated GPU. Systems that prioritize energy efficiency and compact cooling may find the Core Ultra 7 155HL more appropriate.

The benchmark data does not contain direct comparisons between the two, so the exact performance gap remains unmeasured. However, the percentile rankings and the complete absence of benchmark records for the Core Ultra 7 155HL indicate that the Core 9 273PQE is the stronger performer in the database's recorded results.

Users choosing between these two processors should consider the socket difference first. Intel Socket 1700 and Intel Socket 1851 are not interchangeable, so motherboard selection will constrain the choice. The Core 9 273PQE targets high-performance desktop builds, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL targets lower-power desktop configurations with its 45-watt envelope. The Core 9 273PQE is the performance choice based on all recorded data, while the Core Ultra 7 155HL is the efficiency-oriented alternative.