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

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split personality between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE takes only 4. However, the margin of victory matters more than the raw count. The Ultra 7 265HX dominates in encryption, prime number finding, and floating point math, with leads ranging from 4.9% to 51.2%. The Core 9 273PQE counters with a massive 29.7% win in integer math and a 14.4% advantage in data compression. This creates a nuanced picture: the mobile chip is the general-purpose workhorse, but the desktop chip has specialized strengths.

For most users, the data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX as the better all-rounder. Its Cinebench scores are consistently 3.6% higher across all six tests, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core. Its PassMark multithread score of 47985 also edges out the Core 9's 46107. The 265HX belongs in a laptop or mobile workstation where its 55 W TDP and 20-core, 20-thread configuration provide a strong balance of power and efficiency.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the pick for specific workloads that reward its architecture. If the primary task involves integer-heavy calculations, like certain scientific computing or financial modeling, the 29.7% lead in PassMark integer math is decisive. Similarly, if data compression is a constant workload, the 14.4% advantage in that test makes the desktop chip the logical choice. For general productivity, rendering, and everyday computing, the 265HX's consistent wins across Cinebench and most PassMark suites make it the safer recommendation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core 9 273PQE, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, uses the Bartlett Lake codename and fits the desktop Socket 1700. It offers 12 cores and 24 threads, which indicates hyperthreading is enabled. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and it has ECC memory capability, which is a feature typically aimed at workstation reliability.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX uses TSMC's 3 nm process, a much more advanced node. It is part of the Core Ultra Series 2 with Arrow Lake architecture, and it is a mobile chip on the BGA 2114 socket. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, indicating no hyperthreading, with a transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. Its cache is larger per core: 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 is smaller at 30 MB. It only supports DDR5 memory and does not support ECC. The 265HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the 273PQE does not.

The process node difference is striking: 10 nm vs 3 nm. This likely explains why the 265HX, despite having 20 cores, has a 55 W TDP versus the 125 W TDP of the 12-core 273PQE. The 3 nm process allows the Ultra 7 to run more cores at a lower power draw. The 265HX also has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to 89.6 GB/s for the 273PQE, and it offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 16 for the desktop part.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 265HX features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The mobile part also has a newer release date (2025-01-12) compared to the desktop chip (2026-03-08), and it carries the part number SRVFH versus SA4Q9 for the 273PQE.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 265HX scores 4096 against 3950 for the 273PQE, a 3.6% difference. The same delta appears in R15 singlecore (578 vs 557), R20 multicore (17069 vs 16459), R20 singlecore (2409 vs 2323), R23 multicore (40642 vs 39190), and R23 singlecore (5737 vs 5532). This uniformity suggests an architectural advantage that scales across the entire render workload.

The PassMark suite tells a more varied story. In data compression, the 273PQE wins decisively: 585752 vs 511817, a 14.4% lead. In integer math, the desktop chip also wins big, scoring 164629 against 126954, which is 29.7% higher. In single-thread performance, the 273PQE narrowly takes the lead with 4573 vs 4500, a 1.6% margin.

The 265HX responds with several commanding wins. Its data encryption score of 39472 crushes the 29636 of the 273PQE, a 24.9% advantage. In find prime numbers, the mobile chip scores 406 vs 198, a 51.2% lead, which is the largest gap in the entire head-to-head. Floating point math goes to the 265HX at 161605 vs 125546, a 22.3% win. The 265HX also leads in extended instructions (40741 vs 38743, 4.9%), multithread (47985 vs 46107, 3.9%), physics (2978 vs 2754, 7.5%), and random string sorting (62458 vs 53167, 14.9%).

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights where these two parts diverge in physical design and features.

• Cores: The 265HX has 20 cores; the 273PQE has 12.
• Threads: The 273PQE has 24 threads, while the 265HX has 20.
• Base Clock: The 273PQE runs at 3.40 GHz, the 265HX at 2.60 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, the 265HX to 5.30 GHz.
• TDP: The 273PQE has a 125 W TDP, the 265HX a 55 W TDP.
• Socket: The 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, the 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114.
• Codename: Bartlett Lake vs Arrow Lake-HX.
• Process Node: 10 nm (Intel) vs 3 nm (TSMC).
• Transistors: The 265HX has 17,800 million; the 273PQE does not list a number.
• Die Size: The 265HX is 243 mm²; the 273PQE does not list one.
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core vs 192 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: 2 MB per core vs 3 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: 36 MB shared vs 30 MB shared.
• Memory Support: The 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5; the 265HX supports only DDR5.
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: True for the 273PQE, false for the 265HX.
• PCIe: 16 lanes for the 273PQE, 20 lanes for the 265HX.
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 770 vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.
• Multiplier Unlocked: False for the 273PQE, true for the 265HX.
• Market Segment: Desktop vs Mobile.
• Release Date: 2026-03-08 vs 2025-01-12.
• Launch MSRP: $589 for the 273PQE; no MSRP is listed for the 265HX.
• Part Number: SA4Q9 vs SRVFH.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, which is higher than the 63173 of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 265HX outperform the Core 9 273PQE in all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes. The 265HX wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multicore) by a consistent 3.6% margin.

Q: Which CPU is better for prime number calculation?

A: The 265HX is far superior. It scores 406 in the PassMark find prime numbers test, while the 273PQE scores only 198, a 51.2% advantage.

Q: Is the Core 9 273PQE better in any PassMark integer or compression workload?

A: Yes. The 273PQE leads in integer math by 29.7% (164629 vs 126954) and in data compression by 14.4% (585752 vs 511817).

Q: Can the Core 9 273PQE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is listed as true for the 273PQE. The 265HX does not support ECC.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a 5.90 GHz boost clock, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX has a 5.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 273PQE has a 125 W TDP, and the 265HX has a 55 W TDP. The 265HX is rated for much lower power consumption.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins in the majority of workloads. It wins in Cinebench all versions, making it the better choice for rendering, video editing, and other multithreaded creative tasks. It also takes PassMark encryption (24.9% ahead), extended instructions (4.9% ahead), prime number finding (51.2% ahead), floating point math (22.3% ahead), multithread (3.9% ahead), physics (7.5% ahead), and random string sorting (14.9% ahead). This makes it the go-to for scientific simulations, data encryption, physics engines, and any workload that stresses floating point units or requires high memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 4 tests. It wins PassMark data compression, integer math, and single-thread PassMark (4500 vs 4573). The compression and integer wins are large enough (14.4% and 29.7%) to make it the specialist for database operations, file archiving, compression algorithms, and integer-heavy financial or engineering code. The single-thread lead is narrow, but the desktop chip also has a higher boost clock (5.90 GHz vs 5.30 GHz) which may contribute to that edge.

The data reveals a clear division: the 265HX is the versatile, high-throughput processor for modern mobile and low-power systems, while the 273PQE is the targeted integer and compression specialist for desktop workloads. The 265HX's 3 nm TSMC process and 20 cores deliver broader, more consistent performance across the PassMark and Cinebench spectra, making it the default recommendation for most users. The 273PQE's 10 nm Intel node and 12 cores with hyperthreading remain relevant for users who hit the integer or compression bottleneck daily. The 265HX's 4 wins vs 13 wins in the head-to-head is the raw score, but the 29.7% integer margin is the kind of gap that can define a purchase for a niche workload.