Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is decisively lopsided. The Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The only test where the Core Ultra 9 285H takes the lead is PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 330 against the Core 9's 198, a 40 percent deficit for the desktop part.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 9 273PQE scores 5532, while the Core Ultra 9 285H manages only 2129.5. That is a 159.8 percent advantage for the Core 9. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a similar story, with the Core 9 at 557 versus 313, a 78 percent lead. Cinebench R20 single-core repeats the pattern: 2323 versus 1722, a 34.9 percent gap.

Multi-core results are also dominated by the Core 9 273PQE. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the biggest delta: 39190 versus 20781.5, an 88.6 percent difference. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test gives 3950 versus 3177.5, a 24.3 percent lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 16459 versus 12201, a 34.9 percent advantage. PassMark multi-thread confirms the trend at 46107 versus 34171, again 34.9 percent ahead.

Integer math exposes the widest compute gap outside of Cinebench. The Core 9 scores 164629 in PassMark integer math, while the Core Ultra 9 scores 85922. That is a 91.6 percent difference. Data compression follows with 585752 versus 335859, a 74.4 percent lead for the Core 9. Extended instructions show 38743 versus 26794, a 44.6 percent gap. Random string sorting gives 53167 versus 40931, a 29.9 percent lead. Floating-point math shows a smaller but still clear margin: 125546 versus 109190, a 15 percent advantage. Data encryption is closer at 29636 versus 26140, only 13.4 percent apart. PassMark physics shows a modest 9.6 percent lead for the Core 9 at 2754 versus 2513.

The narrowest overall result is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core 9 scores 4573 and the Core Ultra 9 scores 4415, a 3.6 percent margin. That near-tie in the standalone single-thread workload stands in sharp contrast to the enormous Cinebench single-core gaps. The discrepancy suggests the two tests measure different aspects of single-core performance, and the Core 9's advantage is not uniform across all workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins across rendering, compression, encryption, math, and multithreaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 places it far ahead of the Core Ultra 9's 20781.5. For anyone running CPU-bound rendering tasks, the recorded data points to a clear preference for the Core 9. The PassMark integer math result, 164629 versus 85922, reinforces this for compute-heavy integer workloads. Data compression at 585752 versus 335859 shows that archiving and compression tasks favor the Core 9 substantially.

The Core Ultra 9 285H shows only one recorded win. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 330 against 198. This workload, which stresses prime number generation, is the only area where the mobile part demonstrates an advantage. The margin is large, a 40 percent difference from the Core 9's perspective, but it is a single isolated test. No other benchmark in the comparison favors the Core Ultra 9.

The Core Ultra 9 285H also holds a percentile ranking of 86 against all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PQE sits at 93. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: 66099 for the Core 9 versus 38312 for the Core Ultra 9. The Core 9's nearest rival list includes the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D with an average score of 65914 and a delta of 0.3 percent, meaning the Core 9 and that AMD part are effectively tied. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits 1.1 percent ahead, and the AMD EPYC 4465P is 1.2 percent ahead. The Core 9 is within a narrow band of these desktop and workstation parts.

The Core Ultra 9 285H's nearest rivals are different in character. The Intel Core 9 270H scores 38335, just 0.1 percent ahead. The Intel Core i5-13600HX is 0.1 percent behind, the Intel Xeon w3-2525 is 0.2 percent ahead, and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 is 0.2 percent behind. The Core Ultra 9 sits in a tight cluster of mobile and mid-range parts, none of which approach the Core 9's average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake-H codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm. That said, the measured performance does not favor the smaller node in this comparison. The Core 9, on the older and larger node, wins the vast majority of benchmarks.

The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores but only 16 threads. This means the Core 9 supports simultaneous multithreading, while the Core Ultra 9 does not. Despite having fewer physical cores, the Core 9's 24 threads give it a scheduling advantage in multithreaded workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result, 39190 versus 20781.5, reflects that advantage.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 9 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 has more L1 and L2 per core, but the Core 9 has 12 MB more shared L3. The larger shared L3 on the Core 9 likely contributes to its strong performance in data compression and integer math, where working sets can exceed per-core cache.

The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 9 285H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2049. The TDP figures reflect this: 125 watts for the Core 9 versus 45 watts for the Core Ultra 9. The Core 9 is designed for sustained high-power operation, while the Core Ultra 9 targets lower-power mobile systems. The power envelope difference is one of the clearest architectural separators between the two.

The Core 9 uses the Bartlett Lake generation label, while the Core Ultra 9 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake architecture label. The Core 9's boost clock is 5.90 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9's is 5.40 GHz. The Core 9's base clock is 3.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 9. Higher clocks on the Core 9 align with its single-core benchmark wins.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads; the Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

TDP splits them into different classes: 125 watts for the Core 9 versus 45 watts for the Core Ultra 9. The socket is another major divider. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2049. The Core 9 is a desktop chip; the Core Ultra 9 is a mobile chip.

The process node is 10 nm for the Core 9 and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 9. The foundry differs too: Intel for the Core 9, TSMC for the Core Ultra 9. The Core 9's codename is Bartlett Lake; the Core Ultra 9's is Arrow Lake-H. The Core 9 generation is labeled "Core 9 (Bartlett Lake)", while the Core Ultra 9 generation is "Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H)".

Cache per core differs. The Core 9 has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core. The Core Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. Shared L3 is 36 MB for the Core 9 and 24 MB for the Core Ultra 9.

Memory support overlaps on DDR5, but the Core 9 also supports DDR4, while the Core Ultra 9 supports LPDDR5X instead. Both are dual-channel. Memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 9. The Core Ultra 9 has the higher memory bandwidth despite its lower TDP.

PCIe lanes differ. The Core 9 supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 9 supports Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 9 uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Both support ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. The release dates differ: the Core 9 has a release date in March 2026, while the Core Ultra 9 has a release date in January 2025. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 is $589. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 9 is $651.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 16 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins only one, the PassMark find prime numbers test.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 versus 2129.5 for the Core Ultra 9 285H, a 159.8 percent difference. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 4573 versus 4415, a 3.6 percent difference.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 9 285H have more cores?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12. However, the Core 9 has 24 threads versus 16 threads for the Core Ultra 9.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099. The Core Ultra 9 285H has an average benchmark score of 38312.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons show?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits within 1.2 percent of the AMD EPYC 4465P, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Core Ultra 9 285H sits within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core 9 270H, Intel Core i5-13600HX, Intel Xeon w3-2525, and AMD Ryzen 7 250.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core 9 273PQE as the stronger processor in nearly every measured workload. Its win count of 16 out of 17 comparisons, combined with an average benchmark score of 66099 against 38312, establishes a wide overall performance margin. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 39190 versus 20781.5 and the integer math result of 164629 versus 85922 are the clearest indicators of its dominance in compute-heavy tasks.

The Core Ultra 9 285H is not without merits. Its 45 watt TDP positions it for mobile systems where power draw matters more than raw throughput. Its 16 cores, while lacking simultaneous multithreading, still deliver competitive results in the find prime numbers test, where it beats the Core 9 by 40 percent. Its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and its 3 nm TSMC process node represent a more modern foundation in those specific areas. The percentile ranking of 86 against all CPUs confirms it is a capable part in its own right, just not in the same class as the Core 9.

The Core 9 273PQE appears to be the appropriate choice for desktop users who prioritize rendering, compression, encryption, and multithreaded compute. Its 125 watt TDP and Socket 1700 platform fit a traditional desktop build. The Core Ultra 9 285H, with its BGA 2049 socket and 45 watt TDP, belongs in mobile systems where the lower power envelope and integrated Arc Graphics 140T are relevant. The benchmark data does not support choosing the Core Ultra 9 for raw performance, but the power and form factor differences justify its existence in the mobile segment.