Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear separation of roles between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no benchmark victories for the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V. The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 256V sits in the 75th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099, compared to 21112 for the Core Ultra 7 256V, a gap of roughly three times in overall throughput.

The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop processor with a 125 TDP, 12 cores and 24 threads, designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads. The Core Ultra 7 256V is a mobile processor with a 17 TDP, 8 cores and 8 threads, built for efficiency and portability. The benchmark results reflect this divide: the Core 9 273PQE delivers massive multi-core advantages, while the Core Ultra 7 256V offers a much lower power footprint and a different integrated graphics solution. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload is stationary desktop computing or mobile use.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: the Core Ultra 7 256V uses a more advanced fabrication process, which helps explain its dramatically lower 17 TDP compared to the Core 9 273PQE's 125 TDP.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Lunar Lake part suggest a design optimized for lower latency per thread, while the Core 9 273PQE compensates with a much larger L3 pool.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 7 256V has dual-channel memory but the type depends on the motherboard, and it lacks ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 256V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 9 273PQE carries UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 256V carries Arc 140V, a more capable GPU solution for mobile use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 9 273PQE dominates every recorded benchmark, but the margins vary significantly by workload type. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 versus 10399 for the Core Ultra 7 256V, a delta of 276.9%. This is the single biggest gap in the dataset. PassMark integer math shows a similar scale of advantage, with 164629 versus 43358, a 279.7% delta. These two results point to the Core 9 273PQE's raw parallel throughput being nearly four times higher in heavily threaded integer workloads.

Multi-core rendering benchmarks show consistent but slightly smaller advantages. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 16459 versus 6958, a 136.5% delta. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3950 versus 1583.5, a 149.4% delta. PassMark multi-thread shows 46107 versus 19530, a 136.1% delta. PassMark random string sorting shows 53167 versus 22481, a 136.5% delta. These results cluster around the 136-150% range, indicating that the Core 9 273PQE consistently delivers roughly 2.3 to 2.5 times the multi-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 256V in these tests.

Single-threaded results tell a different story. The closest margin in the entire dataset is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 198 versus 192, a mere 3.1% delta. PassMark single thread shows 4573 versus 4029, a 13.5% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 versus 285.5, a 95.1% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5532 versus 1877.5, a 194.6% delta. The single-core gap varies widely depending on the test. The Core 9 273PQE's higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz explains much of this, but the Lunar Lake architecture's per-core cache advantages keep the Core Ultra 7 256V competitive in certain single-threaded tasks.

Data compression shows a large gap: 585752 versus 184985, a 216.6% delta. Data encryption shows 29636 versus 13998, a 111.7% delta. Extended instructions show 38743 versus 15643, a 147.7% delta. Floating point math shows 125546 versus 58576, a 114.3% delta. Physics shows 2754 versus 1595, a 72.7% delta. The physics test has the second smallest gap in the dataset, suggesting the Core Ultra 7 256V's architecture handles certain physics calculations more efficiently relative to its core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has an average benchmark score of 21112.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 versus 43358, a delta of 279.7%. Cinebench R23 multi-core is close behind at 276.9% delta.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core Ultra 7 256V wins?

A: No. The recorded data shows 17 wins for the Intel Core 9 273PQE and 0 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 198 versus 192, a delta of only 3.1%.

Q: How do the process nodes differ between the two processors?

A: The Core 9 273PQE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 256V is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 256V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in heavily multi-threaded workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers a 276.9% advantage, PassMark integer math delivers 279.7%, and data compression delivers 216.6%. These results indicate the Core 9 273PQE is suited for rendering, scientific computing, data processing, and any workload that can use its 24 threads. Its 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth support large working sets. The 125 TDP and desktop socket indicate a system designed for sustained full-load operation.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins no benchmarks, but its data profile still defines a use case. Its 17 TDP makes it viable for thin-and-light mobile systems where power draw is the primary constraint. The 3 nm process node from TSMC enables this efficiency. The Arc 140V integrated graphics provide a more capable GPU than the UHD Graphics 770, which matters for media and light graphics work in portable devices. The per-core L2 cache of 2.5 MB is larger than the Core 9 273PQE's 2 MB per core, which helps explain why the PassMark find prime numbers gap is only 3.1%. For workloads that are latency-sensitive rather than throughput-heavy, the Core Ultra 7 256V narrows the gap considerably.

The data shows a clear division: the Core 9 273PQE is for desktop users who need maximum multi-threaded compute, while the Core Ultra 7 256V is for mobile users who need reasonable performance within a 17 W power envelope. The 8 cores and 8 threads of the Lunar Lake part cannot match the 12 cores and 24 threads of Bartlett Lake in parallel workloads, but the more advanced process node and larger per-core caches keep it competitive in specific single-threaded scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clock differs: 3.40 GHz versus 2.20 GHz. Boost clock differs: 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP differs dramatically: 125 W versus 17 W.

Socket and form factor differ: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a Desktop part, while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses Intel BGA 2833 and is a Mobile part. The Core 9 273PQE codename is Bartlett Lake, the Core Ultra 7 256V codename is Lunar Lake. Process node differs: 10 nm at Intel versus 3 nm at TSMC.

Cache differs across all levels. L1 cache: 80 KB per core for the Core 9 273PQE versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 7 256V. L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 12 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has memory type dependent on motherboard and no ECC support. Both use dual-channel memory buses. PCIe differs: Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc 140V. Release dates differ: 2026-03-08 for the Core 9 273PQE versus 2024-09-23 for the Core Ultra 7 256V. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589; the Core Ultra 7 256V has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers.