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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which takes 14 of the 17 benchmark comparisons. The most decisive victories come in compute-heavy workloads. In integer math, the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 104943 for the Core Ultra 7 265T, a 56.9% advantage. Data compression shows a similar gap, with the Core 9 273PQE at 585752 versus 370158, a 58.2% lead. Extended instruction throughput favors the Core 9 273PQE by 35.4%, with scores of 38743 and 28609 respectively.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Core 9 273PQE leads by 24.2% in every multicore test and by 24.1% or 24.2% in every single-core test. The specific scores are R15 multicore 3950 vs 3180, R15 single-core 557 vs 449, R20 multicore 16459 vs 13254, R20 single-core 2323 vs 1871, R23 multicore 39190 vs 31558, and R23 single-core 5532 vs 4455. This uniformity across three generations of the Cinebench renderer suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

The PassMark multithread score confirms the pattern, with the Core 9 273PQE at 46107 and the Ultra 7 265T at 37084, a 24.3% difference. Physics simulation also favors the Core 9 273PQE, 2754 to 2391, a 15.2% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core 9 273PQE by 19.7%, 53167 to 44400. Even in single-threaded PassMark performance, where the gap is narrowest, the Core 9 273PQE still leads by 5.4%, with scores of 4573 and 4338.

The Core Ultra 7 265T does have its own wins, and they are worth examining. The largest is in prime number finding, where it scores 322 against 198 for the Core 9 273PQE, a 38.5% advantage. Floating point math also goes to the Ultra 7 265T, 129817 to 125546, a 3.3% margin. Data encryption is essentially a tie, with the Ultra 7 265T at 29687 and the Core 9 273PQE at 29636, a 0.2% difference that is within measurement noise.

The average benchmark score places the Core 9 273PQE at 66099, which puts it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 7 265T averages 47697, sitting in the 90th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 273PQE include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (0.1% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (1.1% higher), and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (1.2% higher). For the Core Ultra 7 265T, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 (0.4% higher), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D at 47908 (0.4% lower), the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 at 47918 (0.5% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H at 47468 (0.5% higher).

The Verdict

The data splits these two processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the stronger processor in almost every measured category. Its 24.2% lead across all Cinebench versions, both single-core and multicore, indicates a substantial throughput advantage for rendering, compilation, and other highly threaded tasks. Its 56.9% lead in integer math and 58.2% lead in data compression reinforce this picture. The 93rd percentile ranking versus the 90th percentile for the Ultra 7 265T reflects that overall average score gap of 66099 to 47697.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T is not without merit. Its 38.5% advantage in prime number finding and its small lead in floating point math suggest the Arrow Lake architecture handles certain algorithmic patterns differently. The data encryption result is effectively a draw. However, these wins are isolated. The Ultra 7 265T loses by large margins in most tests, and its average benchmark score is about 28% lower than the Core 9 273PQE.

For a system where raw compute performance is the priority, the recorded data points firmly to the Core 9 273PQE. For workloads that emphasize prime number generation or floating point throughput, the Ultra 7 265T shows an edge, but the overall benchmark profile does not suggest it can compete on general performance. The choice between them depends entirely on whether those specific wins matter more than the broad performance advantage of the Core 9 273PQE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE averages 66099, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T averages 47697.

Q: How much faster is the Core 9 273PQE in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 versus 31558 for the Ultra 7 265T, a 24.2% advantage.

Q: In which test does the Core Ultra 7 265T have its largest win?

A: The Ultra 7 265T leads by 38.5% in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 322 versus 198.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 against 4338, a 5.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead is 24.2%, with scores of 5532 and 4455.

Q: How do the two processors compare in data encryption?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265T scores 29687 and the Core 9 273PQE scores 29636, a difference of 0.2% in favor of the Ultra 7 265T.

Q: What percentile does each processor hold in the database?

A: The Core 9 273PQE is in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 265T is in the 90th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE and 1.50 GHz for the Ultra 7 265T. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. Thermal design power is 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE and 35 W for the Ultra 7 265T.

They use different sockets: the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265T uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 265T supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PQE and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265T. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Ultra 7 265T.

PCIe lanes also differ, with the Core 9 273PQE offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Ultra 7 265T offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different as well: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9 273PQE versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 7 265T. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589, and the Ultra 7 265T has a launch MSRP of $384. Release dates differ, with the Ultra 7 265T released earlier and the Core 9 273PQE released later. The part numbers are SA4Q9 for the Core 9 273PQE and SRQCS for the Ultra 7 265T.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is based on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation, part of the Core Ultra Series 2.

The process nodes tell a significant story. The Core 9 273PQE is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Ultra 7 265T uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 7 265T also lists 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. 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 Ultra 7 265T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 7 265T may explain its wins in prime number finding and floating point math, while the larger shared L3 on the Core 9 273PQE may support its broad throughput advantages.

The core count difference is notable. The Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores but only 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. Despite having 8 fewer physical cores, the Core 9 273PQE wins nearly every multithreaded benchmark, which suggests its higher per-core performance and thread support more than compensate for the core count deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE dominates the majority of measured workloads. Its 24.2% lead across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multicore, makes it the clear choice for rendering and other CPU-bound creative tasks. The 56.9% lead in integer math and 58.2% lead in data compression point to advantages in general computation, database work, and file compression workloads. The 24.3% lead in PassMark multithread and 19.7% lead in random string sorting reinforce its strength in heavily threaded and data-manipulation tasks. Extended instruction throughput, where it leads by 35.4%, suggests an advantage in workloads that use modern CPU instruction sets. Physics simulation, with a 15.2% lead, favors the Core 9 273PQE as well.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins in a smaller set of specific scenarios. Its 38.5% lead in prime number finding is the largest margin either processor achieves in any test. This suggests a particular strength in integer-heavy algorithmic loops that fit within its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The 3.3% lead in floating point math, with scores of 129817 versus 125546, indicates an edge in numerically intensive workloads such as scientific simulations or certain financial calculations. Data encryption is effectively tied, with the Ultra 7 265T ahead by only 0.2%, so neither processor has a meaningful advantage there.

The use-case split follows from these results. The Core 9 273PQE suits workloads that demand raw throughput across many threads, including rendering, video encoding, software compilation, and data processing. The Ultra 7 265T suits workloads that stress floating point arithmetic or prime number computation, where its architectural design provides a measurable benefit. Its 35 W TDP also makes it the lower-power option, though the data does not directly measure energy efficiency. For general-purpose computing, the recorded benchmarks show the Core 9 273PQE winning in 14 of 17 comparisons, which is the dominant pattern in this dataset.