Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE decisively outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H in the recorded benchmark suite, winning 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 9 273PQE’s average benchmark score of 66099 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 356H’s average of 41215 sits in the 87th percentile. This gap is substantial, but the data also reveals specific workloads where the mobile chip fights back.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the Intel Core 9 273PQE appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5532 against the Core Ultra 7 356H’s 2040, a delta of 171.2%. This result indicates a massive advantage in lightly threaded, clock-sensitive tasks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a similar story, with the Core 9 273PQE scoring 39190 versus 18395, a 113% lead. These two results alone demonstrate that the desktop part is in a different performance class for both single-thread and fully parallel rendering workloads.

The Cinebench R20 results reinforce this pattern. In multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 16459 compared to 12153 for the Core Ultra 7 356H, a 35.4% advantage. Single-core in R20 shows a 35.5% lead, with scores of 2323 and 1715 respectively. The older Cinebench R15 test also favors the Core 9 273PQE, with a 29.3% lead in multi-core (3950 vs 3055) and an 83.8% lead in single-core (557 vs 303). The single-core delta in R15 is unusually large, suggesting the Core Ultra 7 356H’s low base clock of 1.90 GHz hampers it in short, single-threaded bursts.

PassMark’s integer math test reveals a near-doubling of performance. The Core 9 273PQE scores 164629, while the Core Ultra 7 356H scores 83111, a 98.1% difference. Data compression also goes heavily to the desktop chip, with scores of 585752 versus 336177, a 74.2% lead. Extended instructions show a 38.9% advantage for the Core 9 273PQE (38743 vs 27898). Floating-point math is less one-sided but still clear, with the Core 9 273PQE leading 125546 to 103128, a 21.7% margin.

The multi-threaded PassMark score gives the Core 9 273PQE a 35.7% edge (46107 vs 33978). Random string sorting favors the Core 9 273PQE by 29.7% (53167 vs 40990). Single-thread performance in PassMark shows a 12.3% lead for the Core 9 273PQE, with scores of 4573 and 4072. Data encryption is the closest win for the Core 9 273PQE, with a 12.5% margin (29636 vs 26345).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H secures two wins. The first is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 327 against the Core 9 273PQE’s 198, a 39.4% advantage. This result is notable because it suggests the mobile chip’s architecture handles this specific integer workload more efficiently per clock. The second win is in PassMark physics, where the Core Ultra 7 356H scores 2895 versus 2754, a 4.9% lead. This is a narrow margin, but it indicates that the mobile processor’s design is not universally slower.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split by use case. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the superior processor for rendering, data compression, encryption, and any workload that scales with raw multi-core throughput. Its 113% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 98.1% lead in integer math make it the obvious choice for desktop workstations handling video encoding, 3D modeling, or heavy compilation. The 93rd percentile overall ranking confirms its position among high-end desktop parts, sitting within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D’s average score.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is not without merit, but its wins are narrow and specialized. The 39.4% advantage in find prime numbers and the 4.9% lead in physics suggest it handles certain algorithmic tasks better, likely due to architectural differences. Its 87th percentile ranking places it near the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, which is a strong desktop processor from a previous generation. However, the mobile chip’s 16 threads versus the Core 9 273PQE’s 24 threads explains why it falls behind in most multi-threaded tests.

For users prioritizing single-core speed, the Core 9 273PQE’s 171.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is decisive. For those constrained by power or form factor, the Core Ultra 7 356H’s 25 W TDP versus 125 W TDP makes it the only viable choice in thin-and-light laptops, but the performance trade-off is severe.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different market segments and use different process nodes. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part built on Intel’s 10 nm process, codenamed Bartlett Lake. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz and boost clock is 5.90 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is a mobile part on Intel’s 3 nm process, codenamed Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost of 4.70 GHz.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. Despite having more cores, the mobile chip has half the L3 capacity, which likely contributes to its lower multi-core scores.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, but no ECC. The higher memory bandwidth on the mobile chip does not translate into overall performance wins in the recorded tests.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 273PQE has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics are different as well, with the desktop part using UHD Graphics 770 and the mobile part using Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 356H uses Intel BGA 2540, confirming the former is socketed and the latter is soldered.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, compared to 41215 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 2.

Q: Where does the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H beat the Core 9 273PQE?

A: The Core Ultra 7 356H wins in PassMark find prime numbers (327 vs 198, a 39.4% lead) and PassMark physics (2895 vs 2754, a 4.9% lead).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 9 273PQE leads by 171.2% (5532 vs 2040).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, but the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does not.

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

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every Cinebench test, all PassMark data processing tests except prime numbers and physics, and the single-thread tests. Its strengths are in rendering (Cinebench R15, R20, R23), data compression (74.2% lead), integer math (98.1% lead), and multi-threaded workloads (35.7% lead). The desktop processor also dominates single-core performance, with a 171.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 12.3% lead in PassMark single-thread.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins only in find prime numbers and physics. The prime number test shows a 39.4% advantage, indicating better efficiency in this specific algorithmic task. The physics test shows a 4.9% lead, which is narrow but demonstrates that the mobile chip’s architecture can outperform the desktop part in certain floating-point simulations. These wins are isolated and do not compensate for the overall performance deficit.

For users running physics simulations or prime-number-based workloads, the Core Ultra 7 356H offers a measurable edge. For everything else in the recorded benchmarks, the Core 9 273PQE is faster, often by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are as follows. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP differs greatly: 125 W for the desktop part and 25 W for the mobile part.

The process node is 10 nm for the Core 9 273PQE and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 7 356H. L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core. L3 cache is 36 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the desktop part, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the mobile part. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE only.

PCIe lanes are 16 on the desktop part and 12 on the mobile part. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540. The Core 9 273PQE launched on 2026-03-08 with an MSRP of $589, while the Core Ultra 7 356H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers and are currently active in production.