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

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF holds a higher average benchmark score of 71910, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 66099. This places the Ultra 7 in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the Core 9’s 93rd percentile.

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates the head-to-head results, winning 16 of 17 comparisons. The Intel Core 9 273PQE takes a single win in the PassMark integer math test.

Q: Is there a difference in the manufacturing process?

A: Yes, the Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 7 also has a defined transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², whereas the Core 9’s transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Ultra 7 has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to the Core 9’s 89.6 GB/s.

Q: What are the differences in core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9 therefore offers more threads per core due to hyper-threading, but the Ultra 7 has a larger total core count.

Q: Do these processors include integrated graphics?

A: The Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF does not have integrated graphics (listed as N/A).

Architecture Differences

The foundational architecture of these two processors diverges significantly. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture and is part of the Core 9 generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundries. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC.

The core configuration highlights a major design split. The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating that each physical core supports two threads. The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses 20 cores and 20 threads, a design that does not rely on simultaneous multi-threading. This means the Ultra 7’s thread count is equal to its core count, while the Core 9 doubles its thread count over its core count.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PQE provides 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 265KF offers larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is smaller at 30 MB. The larger L1 and L2 allocations on the Ultra 7 likely contribute to its single-thread performance edge.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving it broader compatibility with older memory platforms. The Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 exclusively. The memory bus is dual-channel on both, but the Ultra 7’s recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s exceeds the Core 9’s 89.6 GB/s.

The PCIe support differs as well. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 265KF offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 7 more direct PCIe lanes for expansion devices.

The Core 9 273PQE is a locked processor (multiplier not unlocked), while the Core Ultra 7 265KF is unlocked, allowing user-controlled overclocking. The Core 9 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, whereas the Ultra 7 lacks any integrated graphics solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark records show a decisive performance gap in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF across nearly every test. In Cinebench R15, the Ultra 7 scores 5013 in multi-core and 707 in single-core, versus 3950 and 557 for the Core 9, representing a 21.2% lead in both cases. The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern: the Ultra 7 posts 20889 multi-core and 2948 single-core, while the Core 9 manages 16459 and 2323, again a 21.2% gap.

Cinebench R23 reinforces this trend. The Ultra 7 delivers 49736 in multi-core and 7021 in single-core, compared to the Core 9’s 39190 and 5532. The percentage difference remains consistent at 21.2% across both metrics. This consistency suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage for the Arrow Lake design.

The PassMark suite shows a broader range of deltas. In data compression, the Ultra 7 scores 666589 versus 585752 for the Core 9, a 12.1% advantage. Data encryption reveals a larger gap: the Ultra 7 scores 48198 versus 29636, a 38.5% lead. Extended instructions testing shows the Ultra 7 ahead by 28.9%, with scores of 54513 versus 38743.

The most dramatic difference appears in the prime number finding test. The Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 486, while the Core 9 273PQE scores only 198, resulting in a 59.3% deficit for the Core 9. Floating-point math also shows a substantial gap: the Ultra 7 posts 189431 against 125546, a 33.7% advantage. Random string sorting follows with the Ultra 7 at 79735 versus 53167, a 33.3% lead.

The single-thread and multithread PassMark tests favor the Ultra 7 as well. Multithread scores are 58518 versus 46107, a 21.2% difference. Physics testing shows 3633 versus 2754, a 24.2% gap. Single-thread scores are closer: 4928 versus 4573, a 7.2% advantage for the Ultra 7.

The sole victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE comes in PassMark integer math. There, the Core 9 scores 164629 versus 143351 for the Ultra 7, giving the Core 9 a 14.8% lead. This is the only head-to-head test where the Core 9 outperforms its rival.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.90 GHz for the Ultra 7 and 3.40 GHz for the Core 9. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz for the Ultra 7 and 5.90 GHz for the Core 9, making the Core 9 the higher-boosting part.

The process node differs: the Core 9 uses 10 nm, and the Ultra 7 uses 3 nm. The foundry also differs, with Intel producing the Core 9 and TSMC producing the Ultra 7. The Ultra 7 has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 9 has no recorded values for these fields.

Cache specifications diverge, with the Core 9 offering 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3, versus the Ultra 7’s 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9, and DDR5 only for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 9 but absent on the Ultra 7. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 7 has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Core 9 includes UHD Graphics 770; the Ultra 7 has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851.

The release dates differ, with the Ultra 7 released in October 2024 and the Core 9 released in March 2026. The Core 9 has a locked multiplier, while the Ultra 7 is unlocked. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 is $589, and for the Ultra 7 it is $379.

The Verdict

The recorded data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons and holds a higher average benchmark score (71910 versus 66099). Its 94th percentile ranking versus 93rd for the Core 9 confirms its overall edge in the database.

The Ultra 7’s advantages are broad. It leads in every Cinebench test by a consistent 21.2% margin, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios. Its PassMark results show strong leads in data encryption, floating-point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding, with deltas ranging from 12.1% to 59.3%. The only area where the Core 9 excels is integer math, where it posts a 14.8% advantage.

The Core 9 273PQE does offer some distinct features. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes integrated graphics, and has ECC memory support, none of which the Ultra 7 provides. Its higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz does not translate into benchmark wins, however. The data shows that the Ultra 7’s architectural efficiency, built on a 3 nm process with larger per-core caches, overcomes the Core 9’s clock advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the clear winner in rendering and compute-heavy applications. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49736 versus 39190 indicates a 21.2% advantage in tasks that scale across many cores. The 20-core design, paired with 20 threads, delivers higher throughput in multithreaded workloads. The Ultra 7 also wins in physics simulation (3633 versus 2754) and multithread PassMark (58518 versus 46107), making it the stronger choice for scientific computation and video encoding.

The Ultra 7’s single-core performance is also superior, with a 7.2% lead in PassMark single-thread and a 21.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This translates to faster response in lightly threaded applications such as older games or office productivity tools. Its data encryption performance (48198 versus 29636) and extended instruction handling (54513 versus 38743) further establish it as the pick for security-sensitive tasks and vectorized code.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a narrow but real niche. Its PassMark integer math score of 164629 versus 143351 gives it a 14.8% lead in that specific test. Workloads that rely heavily on integer operations, such as certain database or financial calculations, may see a benefit. The Core 9 also supports DDR4 memory, making it a possible upgrade path for systems already invested in that platform, and it includes UHD Graphics 770 for basic display output without a discrete GPU.

The Core 9’s higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz does not produce benchmark wins in the recorded data. The Ultra 7’s 5.50 GHz boost, combined with its larger L1 and L2 caches per core, yields better results in nearly every measured scenario. The Core 9’s ECC memory support is a differentiating feature for reliability-focused builds, but it does not offset the Ultra 7’s performance dominance.

For users prioritizing raw performance across a broad set of tasks, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the data-backed choice. Its only recorded loss is in integer math, and its wins span rendering, encryption, compression, and single-threaded speed. The Intel Core 9 273PQE serves a narrower audience, particularly those needing DDR4 compatibility, integrated graphics, or ECC support, and it holds a specific advantage in integer-heavy workloads.