Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Intel Core 9 273PQE and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H occupy different corners of the Intel lineup. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the interesting part is where the smaller, lower-power part manages to push back. Benchmark results from the database reveal a consistent pattern: the Core 9 273PQE dominates in most computational workloads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H shows specific strengths in a couple of narrow tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its victories span the entire Cinebench suite, both single-core and multi-core tests, and the majority of PassMark workloads. The Core Ultra 7 366H wins only 2 tests: PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Core 9 273PQE is the choice for heavily threaded productivity, content creation, and integer-heavy computation. Its multi-core Cinebench scores are significantly higher, and its integer math result is nearly double that of the Core Ultra 7 366H. The Core 9 273PQE also leads in data compression by a substantial margin, which points to advantages in file archiving and database workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 366H wins in prime number finding by 64.6% (326 vs 198) and in physics simulation by 4.6% (2880 vs 2754). These are specific, narrow wins. Prime number finding often benefits from certain instruction patterns or cache behavior, while the physics score likely reflects a different core arrangement or clock behavior under that particular load. The Core Ultra 7 366H also has a higher PassMark single-thread score relative to its Cinebench single-core results, but it still trails the Core 9 273PQE in both.

For mobile use, the Core Ultra 7 366H has a 25 TDP versus the 125 TDP of the Core 9 273PQE. That difference matters for sustained workloads in compact chassis. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part with a Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile part on BGA 2540. So the win distribution is partly a reflection of the intended market segments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41263. The Core 9 273PQE also sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190 versus 28477 for the Core Ultra 7 366H, a delta of 37.6%. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar gap: 16459 vs 11960, also a 37.6% difference.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 366H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins PassMark find prime numbers with a score of 326 versus 198 for the Core 9 273PQE (a -39.3% delta for the Core 9 273PQE). It also wins PassMark physics with 2880 versus 2754, a 4.4% delta.

Q: What is the single-core performance comparison?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with 5532 versus 4020, a 37.6% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 9 273PQE scores 4573 versus 4043, a 13.1% lead.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single win for the Core 9 273PQE comes in PassMark integer math. The score is 164629 versus 83695 for the Core Ultra 7 366H, a 96.7% advantage. This nearly doubles the output and indicates a substantial difference in integer execution throughput. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The thread count difference explains part of the multi-threaded integer gain, but the per-core performance also appears higher based on the single-core tests.

Data compression shows the second-largest gap. The Core 9 273PQE scores 585752 versus 327455, a 78.9% delta. This workload benefits from both raw integer throughput and cache capacity. The Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 versus 18 MB on the Core Ultra 7 366H, which likely helps keep larger working sets resident.

Extended instructions show a 44% advantage for the Core 9 273PQE (38743 vs 26901). This test measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, where the desktop part's higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz plays a role.

The multi-core Cinebench results are consistent across R15, R20, and R23, with deltas of 37.6% in each. R15 multi-core is 3950 vs 2870, R20 is 16459 vs 11960, and R23 is 39190 vs 28477. The consistency suggests a structural advantage in core count and clock behavior rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core Cinebench also shows a 37.5% to 37.6% delta across all three versions. R15 single-core is 557 vs 405, R20 is 2323 vs 1688, and R23 is 5532 vs 4020. The boost clock difference of 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz is the most direct explanation, though the architecture difference also contributes.

PassMark multithread shows a 37.9% delta (46107 vs 33429), and random string sorting shows a 33.5% delta (53167 vs 39814). Floating point math is closer, with a 21.2% delta (125546 vs 103615). Data encryption is the narrowest Core 9 273PQE win at 14.7% (29636 vs 25845).

The two wins for the Core Ultra 7 366H are worth examining. Prime number finding shows a 39.3% advantage in the other direction (326 vs 198). This workload is often sensitive to branch prediction and certain arithmetic patterns. The physics score of 2880 versus 2754 is a 4.4% lead, a small but real margin.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Core 9 273PQE relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has more physical cores but no extra threads.

Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE versus 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The desktop part has a much higher clock ceiling, which shows up in single-core benchmarks.

TDP is a major differentiator: 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE versus 25 W for the Core Ultra 7 366H. This 100 W difference is the clearest indicator of intended use cases. The socket types also reflect this: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The memory bandwidth is higher on the mobile part: 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Core Ultra 7 366H.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The Core 9 273PQE has Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 366H has Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part offers more PCIe connectivity for expansion.

Integrated graphics are different: UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9 273PQE versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Core Ultra 7 366H. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part, so a performance comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589. The Core Ultra 7 366H has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is listed as Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture with a codename of Panther Lake and generation Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H). These are different microarchitectures from different design families.

Process node is a significant difference. The Core 9 273PQE is built on a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is on a 3 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel. The smaller node on the mobile part allows for higher transistor density and lower power draw, which aligns with its 25 W TDP.

Cache layout differs in both size and per-core allocation. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The mobile part has more L1 and L2 per core, which helps with single-thread efficiency, but the desktop part has double the shared L3, which benefits multi-threaded workloads with shared data.

The Core Ultra 7 366H is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, which indicates a specific product tier within the mobile lineup. The Core 9 273PQE does not have a series designation in the database.

The market segments are explicit: Desktop for the Core 9 273PQE, Mobile for the Core Ultra 7 366H. Both are listed as Active in production status. Release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 7 366H released on 2026-01-04 and the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08.

The Core 9 273PQE has a part number of SA4Q9, while the Core Ultra 7 366H has SA4R9Q9EL. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is faster in 15 of 17 recorded tests, with advantages ranging from 13.1% in PassMark single-thread to 96.7% in PassMark integer math. Its multi-core Cinebench scores are consistently 37.6% higher across R15, R20, and R23. The Core 9 273PQE also holds a 93rd percentile ranking versus 87th for the Core Ultra 7 366H.

The Core Ultra 7 366H wins only in prime number finding and physics simulation. Those wins do not offset the broader performance gap. The mobile part has a higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, more L1 and L2 cache per core, and a smaller 3 nm process node. It also has a 25 W TDP versus 125 W, which is the defining difference for mobile deployment.

The 125 W TDP of the Core 9 273PQE requires substantial cooling and power delivery. The 25 W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 366H allows for thin-and-light designs. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part on Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile part on BGA 2540. These are not interchangeable.

For workloads that stress multi-threaded integer performance, data compression, or Cinebench-style rendering, the Core 9 273PQE delivers significantly higher scores. For prime number finding and physics simulation, the Core Ultra 7 366H shows a narrow edge. The data does not support a recommendation for the Core Ultra 7 366H based on raw performance alone, except in those two specific workloads.

The choice between these two processors comes down to the platform. The Core 9 273PQE offers higher performance across nearly every recorded benchmark, with a higher TDP and desktop socket. The Core Ultra 7 366H offers lower power consumption, a smaller process node, and a mobile form factor, with wins in two specialized tests. The database shows a 15 to 2 benchmark split, and the average benchmark score difference is 24836 points in favor of the Core 9 273PQE.