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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX takes 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE wins 4. The overall average benchmark score favors the Ultra 9 285HX at 76155 versus 66099 for the 273PQE, a gap that places the Ultra 9 in the 95th percentile of all CPUs compared to the 93rd percentile for the 273PQE.

The most decisive victories belong to the Intel Core 9 273PQE in single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 273PQE scores 5532 against 2187.5 for the Ultra 9 285HX, a lead of 152.9%. The Cinebench R15 single-core result repeats the pattern: 557 versus 323.5, a 72.2% advantage. The 273PQE also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 39190 versus 36429.5, a 7.6% margin, and PassMark integer math with 164629 versus 155076, a 6.2% edge.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX answers with substantial wins in most multi-threaded workloads. PassMark find prime numbers shows 460 versus 198, a 57% advantage. Data encryption delivers 48567 versus 29636, a 39% lead. Floating point math reaches 194998 versus 125546, a 35.6% margin. Random string sorting comes in at 77196 versus 53167, a 31.1% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 5656.5 versus 3950, a 30.2% lead. Extended instructions score 49148 versus 38743, a 21.2% advantage. PassMark physics records 3476 versus 2754, a 20.8% lead. PassMark multithread finishes 56902 versus 46107, a 19% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core lands at 20236 versus 16459, an 18.7% gap. Data compression shows 631885 versus 585752, a 7.3% lead. The closest contest is PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 285HX edges ahead 4618 versus 4573, a 1% margin.

Cinebench R20 single-core goes to the Ultra 9 285HX with 2856 versus 2323, also an 18.7% gap. This single-core result contradicts the R15 and R23 single-core outcomes, which strongly favor the 273PQE. The benchmark data shows the Ultra 9 285HX holding a narrower single-thread lead in PassMark, while the 273PQE dominates the Cinebench single-core tests. The overall pattern indicates the 273PQE has a higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 5.50 GHz, which likely contributes to its Cinebench single-core advantages, while the Ultra 9 285HX relies on its 24 cores to sweep the parallel workloads.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins the remaining 4.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 5532 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2187.5 for the Ultra 9 285HX, a 152.9% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Ultra 9 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155, while the 273PQE averages 66099. The Ultra 9 also sits in the 95th percentile versus the 93rd percentile for the 273PQE.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 285HX lead in all multi-core tests?

A: No. The 273PQE wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 39190 versus 36429.5, a 7.6% margin, and PassMark integer math with 164629 versus 155076. The Ultra 9 wins the other multi-core tests, including Cinebench R15, R20, and most PassMark workloads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, compared to 5.50 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX.

Q: What is the thread count for each processor?

A: Both processors have 24 threads. The 273PQE achieves this with 12 cores, while the Ultra 9 285HX uses 24 cores.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice based on workload character. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the stronger processor for parallel compute, winning Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, PassMark multithread, physics, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, and random string sorting. Its 24 cores drive these results, and its 95th percentile ranking confirms broad competitiveness against all recorded CPUs.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the pick for single-core dependent tasks in Cinebench, where it leads by 152.9% in R23 and 72.2% in R15. It also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core and PassMark integer math. The 273PQE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, has a 5.90 GHz boost clock, and sits in the 93rd percentile. Its higher TDP of 125 watts versus 55 watts for the Ultra 9 reflects a desktop-oriented design, while the Ultra 9 targets mobile systems with a BGA socket and lower power envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every hardware field. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the 273PQE and 2.80 GHz for the Ultra 9. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively. The TDP rating is 125 watts for the 273PQE and 55 watts for the Ultra 9.

The 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2114. The 273PQE is a desktop market segment part; the Ultra 9 is mobile. The 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the 273PQE. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lane counts differ: the 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 on the 273PQE and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Ultra 9. The 273PQE has a locked multiplier; the Ultra 9 has an unlocked multiplier. The 273PQE launched with an MSRP of $589 and has part number SA4Q9; the Ultra 9 has part number SRVFJ. Release dates are March 2026 for the 273PQE and January 2025 for the Ultra 9.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 9 has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the 273PQE has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Cache layouts differ per core. The 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 9 align with its 24-core design, providing more aggregate L1 and L2 capacity across the chip.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm for the Bartlett Lake desktop part versus 3 nm for the Arrow Lake-HX mobile part. The foundry also differs, with Intel producing the 273PQE and TSMC producing the Ultra 9. The Ultra 9 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, while the 273PQE has no recorded architecture field. The 273PQE generation is listed as Core 9 (Bartlett Lake), and the Ultra 9 generation is Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in workloads that scale with core count and parallel throughput. Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, PassMark multithread, physics, floating point math, extended instructions, data compression, data encryption, find prime numbers, and random string sorting all favor the Ultra 9. Its 24 cores and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support these results. The Ultra 9 also edges the 273PQE in PassMark single-thread by 1%, showing a narrow but consistent single-thread advantage in that specific test.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core and R23 single-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, and PassMark integer math. The R23 multi-core win is notable because it goes against the general multi-core trend, with the 273PQE scoring 39190 versus 36429.5. The single-core wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 are the largest margins in the entire comparison. The 273PQE also records a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz, which correlates with its Cinebench single-core dominance.

The use-case split follows these results. Parallel compute, data processing, and encryption workloads favor the Ultra 9 285HX. Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering and integer-heavy tasks favor the 273PQE. The 273PQE occupies the desktop segment with Socket 1700, 125 watt TDP, and DDR4/DDR5 support. The Ultra 9 occupies the mobile segment with BGA 2114, 55 watt TDP, and DDR5-only support. The recorded percentile data reinforces the split: the Ultra 9 at 95th percentile versus the 273PQE at 93rd, with both processors comparing closely to their nearest rivals in the database.