Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 268V Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V in multi-core workloads?

A: The gap is substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 versus 10653 for the Ultra 7 268V, a delta of 267.9%. PassMark multi-thread shows a similar story: 46107 versus 19297, a 138.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in every recorded single-thread test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5532 compared to 1921 for the Ultra 7 268V, a 188% delta. PassMark single-thread shows a narrower but still clear lead: 4573 versus 4051, a 12.9% advantage.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor uses the smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The Ultra 7 268V uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two chips?

A: The Core 9 273PQE is rated at 125 watts TDP, while the Ultra 7 268V is rated at 17 watts TDP. This reflects their different market segments: desktop versus mobile.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of overall average benchmark score?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 7 268V has an average score of 20897, placing it in the 74th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel designs. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, produced on Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 7 268V is a mobile processor using the Lunar Lake architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. The manufacturing difference is significant: a 3 nm node versus a 10 nm node, which partly explains the Ultra 7's much lower power envelope.

Core organization differs sharply. The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, meaning it supports simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no multithreading. This directly affects multi-threaded workload performance, as the head-to-head data confirms.

Cache hierarchies also differ. 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 Ultra 7 268V has larger per-core allocations at 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, but a much smaller 12 MB shared L3. The total cache footprint is larger on the desktop part, which contributes to its higher throughput in data-heavy tests.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Ultra 7 268V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, with dual-channel configuration but no recorded bandwidth figure and no ECC support.

Other architectural differences include PCIe lanes: the Core 9 273PQE offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 268V offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ too: UHD Graphics 770 on the desktop chip versus Arc 140V on the mobile chip. The Ultra 7 268V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 9 273PQE is from the Core 9 Bartlett Lake generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep: the Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margins vary widely by workload type.

The largest single advantage appears in PassMark integer math, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629 against 42669 for the Ultra 7 268V, a 285.8% delta. This reflects the combination of more cores, multithreading, and higher clock speeds in an integer-heavy workload.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the second-largest gap at 267.9% (39190 versus 10653). PassMark data compression follows at 222.8% (585752 versus 181443). These three tests represent the biggest wins for the desktop part.

Single-thread tests show a different picture. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PQE leads by 188% (5532 versus 1921). But in PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows dramatically to 12.9% (4573 versus 4051). This suggests the Ultra 7 268V has competitive per-core IPC in certain integer tasks, even though its lower boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 5.90 GHz limits its peak.

The closest result in the entire dataset is PassMark find prime numbers: 198 versus 192, a 3.1% delta. This workload appears to be less sensitive to core count and more dependent on specific instruction efficiency, where the two architectures are nearly equal.

Other notable margins include Cinebench R15 multi-core at 144.4% (3950 versus 1616), PassMark extended instructions at 152.8% (38743 versus 15323), PassMark floating point math at 117.9% (125546 versus 57628), and PassMark data encryption at 115.1% (29636 versus 13779).

The mid-range gaps cluster around 137% to 139%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 139% (16459 versus 6887), Cinebench R20 single-core shows 139% (2323 versus 972), PassMark multithread shows 138.9% (46107 versus 19297), and PassMark random string sorting shows 137.2% (53167 versus 22416).

PassMark physics shows a 70.3% advantage (2754 versus 1617), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 90.1% (557 versus 293). The pattern is consistent: the desktop part wins every category, with the largest margins in heavily multi-threaded workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 268V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP is 125 watts versus 17 watts.

The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 2833 for the mobile part. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop market segment part, while the Ultra 7 268V targets mobile.

Process nodes differ: 10 nm from Intel for the Core 9 273PQE, 3 nm from TSMC for the Ultra 7 268V. The foundries are Intel and TSMC, respectively.

Cache configurations: the Core 9 273PQE uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 268V uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Memory support: the Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC. The Ultra 7 268V has motherboard-dependent memory support, dual-channel, no recorded bandwidth, and no ECC.

PCIe: the Core 9 273PQE has Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes; the Ultra 7 268V has Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc 140V.

The launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PQE is $589. The Ultra 7 268V has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Release dates differ: the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08, the Ultra 7 268V on 2024-09-23. Both are currently active in production.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Core 9 273PQE occupies the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 66099. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 66159 (delta -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914 (delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (delta -1.1%). This places it in a performance class with high-end desktop processors.

The Ultra 7 268V sits in the 74th percentile with an average score of 20897. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE at 20900 (delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-12600T at 20917 (delta -0.1%), and the AMD EPYC 7J13 at 20845 (delta 0.2%). This is a mid-range mobile part.

The average benchmark score difference is roughly 3.2x in favor of the Core 9 273PQE. Every head-to-head benchmark confirms this direction. The only close result is find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 268V comes within 3.1% of the desktop part.

The Ultra 7 268V's strengths are relative, not absolute. It delivers a PassMark single-thread score of 4051, which is only 12.9% behind the Core 9 273PQE. Its 17 watt TDP and 3 nm process make it a highly efficient mobile processor. But the recorded data shows no workload where it outperforms the desktop chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins every recorded benchmark category. The largest wins are in integer-heavy and multi-threaded workloads: PassMark integer math at 285.8% ahead, Cinebench R23 multi-core at 267.9% ahead, and PassMark data compression at 222.8% ahead. These results point toward use cases like software compilation, video rendering, scientific computing, and database workloads that scale with core count and threads.

The Core 9 273PQE also dominates in encoding and encryption tasks. PassMark data encryption shows a 115.1% lead, and PassMark extended instructions shows a 152.8% lead. Its 36 MB L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth support these throughput-sensitive workloads.

The Ultra 7 268V has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its closest performance is in PassMark single-thread (12.9% behind) and PassMark find prime numbers (3.1% behind). In these narrow integer tasks, the Lunar Lake architecture demonstrates competitive per-core efficiency despite having only 8 threads and a lower boost clock.

For workloads that depend on integrated graphics, the recorded data does not include GPU benchmarks. The Ultra 7 268V ships with Arc 140V graphics, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Arc 140V is a more capable integrated GPU, which may matter for mobile users, but no GPU benchmark scores are available in the database to quantify this.

The thermal and power profiles tell the practical story. The Core 9 273PQE requires a 125 watt TDP budget and desktop cooling. The Ultra 7 268V operates at 17 watts, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The market segments are entirely different: desktop versus mobile.

The Core 9 273PQE is the choice for compute-heavy desktop workloads where multi-threaded performance dominates. The Ultra 7 268V is the choice for mobile systems where the 17 watt TDP and 3 nm efficiency matter more than absolute performance. The recorded data gives no scenario where the Ultra 7 268V outperforms the Core 9 273PQE in raw compute, but its power envelope is a clear advantage in portable systems.