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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66,099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T averages 51,310, sitting in the 91st percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Core 9 273PQE scores 39,190 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 16.7% ahead of the Core Ultra 9 285T's 33,573. The same 16.7% delta appears across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in every Cinebench single-core test, including R23 single-core at 5,532 versus 4,739 (16.7% ahead). However, in PassMark's single-thread test, the Core Ultra 9 285T edges ahead by 0.1% with 4,576 versus 4,573.

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

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. Both use simultaneous multithreading, but the Ultra 9 achieves its thread count with more physical cores.

Q: When was each processor released?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285T launched on January 6, 2025, while the Core 9 273PQE launched on March 8, 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct architectural directions within Intel's lineup. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. In contrast, the Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process. The Ultra 9 285T carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 9 273PQE does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

The core counts differ substantially. The Core 9 273PQE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses 24 cores with 24 threads. This means the Ultra 9 285T achieves its thread count without relying on hyperthreading across all cores, whereas the Core 9 273PQE doubles its threads through simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Core Ultra 9 285T 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 L1 and L2 allocations on the Ultra 9 285T reflect its different core design.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 9 285T has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PQE.

PCIe connectivity shows another distinction. The Core 9 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 285T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 9 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Clock speeds and power targets separate the two significantly. The Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.90 GHz with a 125 W TDP. The Core Ultra 9 285T has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz with a 35 W TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits into two clear domains. The Core 9 273PQE wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, establishing dominance in Cinebench rendering workloads and several PassMark compute tests. The Core Ultra 9 285T wins 6 benchmarks, but those wins cluster in specific instruction-level and floating-point operations.

The Core 9 273PQE excels in multi-threaded productivity and integer-heavy workloads. Its Cinebench wins span all three versions (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core tests. In PassMark, it wins data compression by 52.5%, extended instructions by 41%, integer math by 24.3%, multithread by 15.5%, and random string sorting by 11.5%. These results point to strengths in general-purpose computing, content creation, and tasks that benefit from high clock speeds.

The Core Ultra 9 285T wins in floating-point math, prime number finding, encryption, physics, and the PassMark single-thread test. Its floating-point math score of 137,923 is 9% ahead of the Core 9 273PQE's 125,546. The prime number finding score of 345 versus 198 represents a 42.6% advantage. Data encryption shows a 7.6% lead at 32,061 versus 29,636. Physics simulation wins by 3.1% at 2,842 versus 2,754. The single-thread PassMark score is nearly identical, with the Ultra 9 285T ahead by just 0.1%.

The pattern suggests the Core Ultra 9 285T handles specific mathematical and cryptographic workloads more efficiently despite its lower clock speeds, likely due to its newer architecture and different core design. The Core 9 273PQE compensates with substantially higher boost clocks and a higher power envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Cores: 12 (Core 9 273PQE) versus 24 (Core Ultra 9 285T)
• Threads: 24 for both
• Base clock: 3.40 GHz versus 1.40 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.90 GHz versus 5.40 GHz
• TDP: 125 W versus 35 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-S
• Architecture: Not recorded versus Arrow Lake
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: Not recorded versus 17,800 million
• Die size: Not recorded versus 243 mm²
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared for both
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Release date: March 8, 2026 versus January 6, 2025
• Launch MSRP: $589 versus $549
• Part number: SA4Q9 versus SRQD3

Both processors support ECC memory, target the desktop market segment, and have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern across the board. The Core 9 273PQE leads by 16.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3,950 versus 3,384), R15 single-core (557 versus 477), R20 multi-core (16,459 versus 14,100), R20 single-core (2,323 versus 1,990), R23 multi-core (39,190 versus 33,573), and R23 single-core (5,532 versus 4,739). This uniformity across all six Cinebench tests indicates a stable performance gap in rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more varied picture. The largest single delta in either direction comes from data compression, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 585,752 versus 384,140, a 52.5% advantage. Extended instructions show a 41% lead for the Core 9 273PQE at 38,743 versus 27,477. Integer math delivers a 24.3% win at 164,629 versus 132,433. The multithread test shows a 15.5% lead at 46,107 versus 39,931. Random string sorting completes the Core 9 273PQE's PassMark wins with an 11.5% margin at 53,167 versus 47,695.

The Core Ultra 9 285T's biggest win comes in prime number finding, where it scores 345 versus 198, a 42.6% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 9% lead at 137,923 versus 125,546. Data encryption wins by 7.6% at 32,061 versus 29,636. Physics simulation shows a 3.1% margin at 2,842 versus 2,754. The PassMark single-thread test is nearly tied, with the Ultra 9 285T at 4,576 and the Core 9 273PQE at 4,573, a 0.1% difference.

The overall win count stands at 11 for the Core 9 273PQE and 6 for the Core Ultra 9 285T. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 66,099 versus 51,310, a gap of about 28.8%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division based on workload priorities. The Core 9 273PQE delivers higher raw performance across most measured benchmarks, particularly in Cinebench rendering, integer math, data compression, and multi-threaded workloads. Its 16.7% lead across all Cinebench tests and 52.5% lead in data compression make it the stronger choice for content creation, software compilation, and general productivity tasks that rely on high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance.

The Core Ultra 9 285T wins in floating-point math, prime number finding, encryption, physics simulation, and the PassMark single-thread test. Its 42.6% advantage in prime number finding and 9% lead in floating-point math indicate efficiency in specific scientific and cryptographic workloads. The 35 W TDP versus 125 W TDP also suggests the Ultra 9 285T achieves these results with a much lower power envelope.

The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 66,099, placing it near rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65,914, 0.3% ahead) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66,855, 1.1% behind). The Core Ultra 9 285T sits in the 91st percentile at 51,310, near the Intel Core i9-14900T (51,015, 0.6% behind) and the Intel Core i9-13900F (51,730, 0.8% ahead).

Users seeking maximum rendering performance, integer throughput, and multi-threaded productivity should select the Core 9 273PQE. Users prioritizing floating-point operations, encryption workloads, and low power consumption should select the Core Ultra 9 285T. The socket difference (1700 versus 1851) means motherboard compatibility will also factor into the decision.