Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive, though not total, victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE. Out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, it claims 16 wins, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H taking a single, notable triumph. The sheer scale of the Core 9 273PQE's wins in certain workloads is the most striking feature of this comparison.

The largest gulf appears in Cinebench R23 single-core testing, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 against the Ultra 7 265H's 2080, a massive 166% delta. That is not a marginal advantage; it indicates a fundamentally different performance class in lightly threaded tasks. The multi-core Cinebench R23 result tells a similar story, with the Core 9 273PQE at 39190 versus 19940, a 96.5% advantage. Across the Cinebench suite, the pattern is consistent: the Core 9 273PQE leads in R15 multi-core by 32.2%, R15 single-core by 81.4%, and both R20 multi-core and single-core by 35.7%.

In PassMark tests, the Core 9 273PQE extends its lead in integer-heavy work. PassMark integer math shows a 92.6% delta (164629 against 85479), and data compression is 75% higher (585752 versus 334711). Extended instructions also favor the Core 9 273PQE by 44.5%, with floating-point math 15% ahead and multithread performance 35.5% higher. The wins narrow in physics (10.3%), data encryption (14%), and random string sorting (30.5%). Even in single-thread PassMark, where the gap is smallest at 5.5% (4573 versus 4334), the Core 9 273PQE still holds the lead.

The Ultra 7 265H's sole victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 335 against 198, a 40.9% advantage for the mobile chip. This is an outlier in an otherwise one-sided dataset, but it is a real result and one that suggests a specific strength in a particular type of calculation. It does little to offset the overall average benchmark picture: the Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Ultra 7 265H sits at 41621. The Core 9 273PQE also ranks at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Ultra 7 265H ranks at the 88th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the workload landscape cleanly. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering and content creation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 is nearly double that of the Ultra 7 265H, which makes it far better suited for tasks like 3D rendering or video encoding that scale with core count and thread count. The 96.5% delta in that test is the clearest signal in the entire dataset.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core 9 273PQE also dominates, but the margin varies by test. The 166% delta in Cinebench R23 single-core is dramatic, but the much smaller 5.5% delta in PassMark single-thread suggests that the advantage is workload-dependent. Applications that depend on the Cinebench-style instruction mix will see a huge difference, while those that resemble PassMark's single-thread test will see a much smaller one.

The Ultra 7 265H's win in prime number finding is its only concrete territory. This result implies that for certain mathematical or scientific workloads that involve prime number calculations, the mobile chip is unexpectedly competitive. It is not a broad win, but it is a specific one. The data does not support any other use case where the Ultra 7 265H outperforms the Core 9 273PQE. In every other measured category, from data compression to integer math to physics, the Core 9 273PQE is ahead.

The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Core 9 273PQE sits 5 percentile points higher than the Ultra 7 265H. For workloads that align with the Core 9 273PQE's strengths, the performance gap is often large enough to be considered a generational leap, not just a minor spec bump.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families, fabricated by different foundries on different nodes. The Core 9 273PQE is a Bartlett Lake desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 7 265H is an Arrow Lake-H mobile part built on TSMC's 3 nm process. That node difference likely explains the Ultra 7 265H's much lower thermal design power of 28 watts, compared to the Core 9 273PQE's 125 watts.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning the latter lacks simultaneous multithreading. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 24 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 273PQE's larger L3 pool is likely a factor in its multi-threaded dominance.

Clock speeds reflect the desktop versus mobile split. The Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Ultra 7 265H has a base of 2.20 GHz and a boost of 5.30 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE's higher clocks, combined with its thread advantage, explain its benchmark leads.

Memory support also differs. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 7 265H has a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PQE. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes are another split: the Core 9 273PQE has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 7 265H has Gen 5 with 8 lanes, reflecting the mobile part's smaller physical footprint.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 7 265H uses Intel BGA 2049, the latter being soldered for mobile use. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589, while the Ultra 7 265H has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PQE was released later, and the Ultra 7 265H earlier, with both marked as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different chips, but the path is not balanced. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the superior processor in nearly every measured workload. Its 16 benchmark wins out of 17, its 93rd percentile ranking, and its average score of 66099 all point to a chip that delivers substantially higher performance across the board. The 96.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 166% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core are the headline numbers. Anyone building a desktop system for rendering, compiling, or heavy multi-threaded work should look at the Core 9 273PQE, assuming the 125-watt thermal envelope and Socket 1700 platform are acceptable.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is a mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP and a BGA 2049 socket. Its performance is lower across almost all benchmarks, but it is not without merit. Its 16 cores, higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and TSMC 3 nm process node make it a more efficient part for laptops. Its single win in prime number finding shows that in some niche calculations, it can beat the desktop chip. The Ultra 7 265H also holds an 88th percentile ranking, which is respectable for a mobile part.

The choice hinges on the platform. The data cannot recommend the Ultra 7 265H for raw performance, because it loses in 16 of 17 tests, often by wide margins. But the data also cannot recommend the Core 9 273PQE for a laptop, since it is a desktop part with a 125-watt TDP. For a desktop user, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear pick. For a mobile user, the Ultra 7 265H is the only option in this comparison, and its lower power draw and competitive single-thread PassMark score of 4334 make it a reasonable one.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, which is 96.5% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H's score of 19940.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers with a score of 335, beating the Core 9 273PQE's 198, a 40.9% delta in its favor.

Q: What is the difference in threads between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 24 threads across 12 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 threads across 16 cores, meaning the Ultra 7 265H has no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is built on TSMC's 3 nm process.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265H |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.90 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | Not available |