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

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors along clear lines of workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE takes 3. The Core Ultra 7 265K dominates in the Cinebench R15 and R20 suites, where it leads by a consistent 21.3% in both single-core and multi-core tests. It also sweeps the PassMark workload categories that stress encryption, compression, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, multithreading, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread performance.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE claims its victories in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a 9.3% advantage, Cinebench R23 single-core with a massive 173.9% lead, and PassMark integer math with a 14.9% margin. These three wins point to a processor that excels in sustained rendering workloads as measured by the newer Cinebench version and in integer-heavy computation. The R23 single-core result is particularly striking: the Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 against 2020 for the Core Ultra 7 265K, a gap that suggests fundamental differences in how the two chips handle that specific benchmark.

The overall average benchmark scores confirm the Core Ultra 7 265K as the higher-performing part in the database. It posts an average score of 70879, while the Core 9 273PQE averages 66099. The Core Ultra 7 265K also sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs compared to the 93rd percentile for the Core 9 273PQE. These aggregate figures align with the head-to-head count, but the Core 9 273PQE's wins in R23 and integer math prevent a complete sweep and define its niche.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families built on different nodes. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arrow Lake-S with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 265K's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million with a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and thread configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning it does not use multithreading despite having more physical cores. The Core Ultra 7 265K has a higher base clock at 3.90 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, but the Core 9 273PQE has a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and distribution. The Core 9 273PQE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265K provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PQE has more total L3, but the Core Ultra 7 265K has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265K supports only DDR5 across a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 265K provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics units are different as well. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core 9 273PQE does not.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the better overall processor for the majority of workloads. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, leads in average benchmark score by 4780 points, and holds a higher percentile ranking. Its advantages in Cinebench R15 and R20 are uniform at 21.3% across both single-core and multi-core tests. PassMark results show consistent leads ranging from 7.2% in single-thread to 59.7% in prime number finding. For users whose workloads resemble these benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 265K is the stronger choice.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a narrower but real set of advantages. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5532 versus 2020 is the single largest margin in the comparison. Its R23 multi-core lead of 9.3% and integer math lead of 14.9% suggest specific strengths in workloads that stress integer arithmetic and the newer Cinebench rendering path. Users running those exact types of tasks would see better results with the Core 9 273PQE.

The Core Ultra 7 265K also offers more physical cores (20 versus 12), higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16), a smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), and an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PQE counters with a higher boost clock (5.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz), more L3 cache (36 MB versus 30 MB), DDR4 support alongside DDR5, and its R23 and integer math victories. The data does not support a single universal winner, but it does support the Core Ultra 7 265K for general-purpose and most compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265K has more physical cores, while the Core 9 273PQE has more threads due to multithreading.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin in either direction?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 against 2020 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, a 173.9% advantage. The largest Core Ultra 7 265K margin is 59.7% in PassMark find prime numbers, with 491 versus 198.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, which is higher than the 5.50 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. The Core Ultra 7 265K has the higher base clock at 3.90 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K support ECC memory. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 265K supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70879, compared to 66099 for the Intel Core 9 273PQE. The Core Ultra 7 265K also ranks at the 94th percentile versus 93rd for the Core 9 273PQE.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not socket-compatible.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 results set the pattern for the older Cinebench versions. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 5020 in multi-core against 3950 for the Core 9 273PQE, a 21.3% lead. Single-core shows the same 21.3% delta, with 708 versus 557. Cinebench R20 repeats the exact margins: 20918 versus 16459 in multi-core and 2953 versus 2323 in single-core. These uniform deltas indicate a consistent architectural advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K in these workloads.

Cinebench R23 flips the result. The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 in multi-core, 9.3% ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265K's 35850. The single-core test delivers the most dramatic reversal: 5532 for the Core 9 273PQE against 2020 for the Core Ultra 7 265K, a 173.9% margin. The R23 single-core score for the Core Ultra 7 265K appears anomalous when compared to its R15 and R20 single-core wins, suggesting a benchmark-specific behavior rather than a general single-thread deficiency.

PassMark data compression shows the Core Ultra 7 265K ahead at 665554 versus 585752, a 12% lead. Data encryption tilts further: 48246 versus 29636, a 38.6% advantage. Extended instructions show 54333 versus 38743, a 28.7% lead. Prime number finding produces the largest PassMark gap: 491 versus 198, 59.7% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265K. Floating-point math follows with 189629 versus 125546, a 33.8% margin.

The Core 9 273PQE takes PassMark integer math with 164629 against 143242, a 14.9% advantage. PassMark multithread belongs to the Core Ultra 7 265K at 58594 versus 46107, a 21.3% lead. Physics shows 3731 versus 2754, a 26.2% margin for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Random string sorting goes to the Core Ultra 7 265K at 79752 versus 53167, a 33.3% gap. Single-thread results appear twice in the data, both showing the Core Ultra 7 265K at 4928 versus 4573, a 7.2% lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. Both have a TDP of 125.

The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Intel Socket 1851. The process nodes are 10 nm from Intel versus 3 nm from TSMC. The Core Ultra 7 265K has recorded transistor and die size figures of 17,800 million and 243 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has neither recorded.

Cache configurations differ: L1 per core is 80 KB for the Core 9 273PQE and 192 KB for the Core Ultra 7 265K. L2 per core is 2 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared is 36 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9 273PQE, DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC.

PCIe lanes are 16 for the Core 9 273PQE and 20 for the Core Ultra 7 265K, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 9 273PQE does not. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589, and the Core Ultra 7 265K has a launch MSRP of $394. The Core Ultra 7 265K released on 2024-10-23, while the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08.