Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous split between these two processors. The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database, with no benchmark victories for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V. This is not a close contest by any measure, but the magnitude of the wins varies dramatically depending on the workload type.

The Core 9 273PQE dominates heavily in multi-threaded and compute-intensive tasks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39,190 against 10,178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 285% advantage. The PassMark integer math test shows a similar pattern: 164,629 versus 44,019, a 274% lead. These are workloads that scale with core count and thread count, and the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads versus 8 cores and 8 threads for the Ultra 9 288V.

The single-threaded gap is much narrower. In PassMark single-thread, the Core 9 273PQE scores 4,573 against 4,274 for the Ultra 9 288V, a modest 7% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a larger gap at 84.7% (557 versus 301.5), but the newer PassMark measurement indicates that for lightly threaded workloads, the two chips are closer in raw per-core capability.

The Ultra 9 288V does have one area where it competes effectively: the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core 9 273PQE scores 198 versus 195 for the Ultra 9 288V, a difference of only 1.5%. This is the closest result in the entire head-to-head set, suggesting that certain integer-heavy single-threaded operations do not favor either architecture strongly.

Overall, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear performance leader across every recorded benchmark. The Ultra 9 288V sits in the 76th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66,099, nearly three times the 23,219 average of the Ultra 9 288V.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different use cases. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP, 12 cores, 24 threads, and a 5.90 GHz boost clock. It delivers exceptional multi-threaded performance, with Cinebench R23 multi-core scores that are 285% higher than the Ultra 9 288V. This is a processor for sustained heavy workloads: rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math all favor it by margins ranging from 109.6% to 214%.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is a mobile processor with a 30 W TDP, 8 cores, 8 threads, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock. Its performance is far lower across the board, but the power envelope is dramatically different. The database does not record any benchmark where the Ultra 9 288V wins, so there is no performance-based argument for choosing it. The practical argument for the Ultra 9 288V would be its mobile form factor and power efficiency, not its raw compute output.

For anyone building a desktop system and prioritizing compute performance, the Core 9 273PQE is the only choice supported by the data. It outperforms the Ultra 9 288V in every single recorded test, and its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which it edges by 0.3% in average score. The Ultra 9 288V, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i9-11900F and AMD Ryzen 7 5800H in average score, both older or lower-tier parts.

The launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PQE is $589. The Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking flexibility is not a differentiator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Core 9 273PQE comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 39,190 versus 10,178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 285% delta. This is a massive gap that reflects both the core count difference (12 versus 8) and the thread count difference (24 versus 8). The PassMark integer math test shows a similar margin at 274% (164,629 versus 44,019), and the PassMark data compression test shows 214% (585,752 versus 186,521).

The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a 132.8% lead (16,459 versus 7,069), while Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 149.5% (3,950 versus 1,583). The PassMark multithread test shows 132.7% (46,107 versus 19,810), and random string sorting shows 135% (53,167 versus 22,622). Extended instructions show 148.1% (38,743 versus 15,613), and floating-point math shows 110.9% (125,546 versus 59,536).

Data encryption is another strong area for the Core 9 273PQE, with a 109.6% lead (29,636 versus 14,141). The physics test shows a 68.2% advantage (2,754 versus 1,637). The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 133% (2,323 versus 997), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 183.7% (5,532 versus 1,950). Cinebench R15 single-core shows 84.7% (557 versus 301.5).

The closest results are in PassMark single-thread (7% lead, 4,573 versus 4,274) and find prime numbers (1.5% lead, 198 versus 195). These two tests show that the Ultra 9 288V is not entirely outclassed in lightly threaded integer work, but the Core 9 273PQE still wins both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 39,190 versus 10,178 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 285% advantage. PassMark multithread shows 46,107 versus 19,810, a 132.7% lead.

Q: How close is single-threaded performance?

A: The gap is much smaller than in multi-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4,573 for the Core 9 273PQE versus 4,274 for the Ultra 9 288V, a 7% lead. The find prime numbers test shows only a 1.5% difference (198 versus 195).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9 273PQE also has a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression and encryption?

A: The Core 9 273PQE dominates both. Data compression shows 585,752 versus 186,521, a 214% lead. Data encryption shows 29,636 versus 14,141, a 109.6% lead.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a 125 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 288V has a 30 W TDP. The Ultra 9 288V is designed for mobile use with a BGA 2833 socket, while the Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktops.

Q: How do these processors rank against all CPUs?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66,099. The Ultra 9 288V sits in the 76th percentile, with an average score of 23,219.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and foundries. The Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Ultra 9 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, codenamed Lunar Lake, and is built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the 3 nm node is much more advanced than the 10 nm node, which explains how the Ultra 9 288V achieves a 30 W TDP despite having 8 cores.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 288V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 9 288V are notable given its smaller overall cache footprint.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 9 288V uses Arc 140V. The database does not record graphics benchmark scores for either, so a direct comparison is not possible from the data.

The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Ultra 9 288V supports only LPDDR5X with dual-channel access and a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, but it does not support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE and 3.30 GHz for the Ultra 9 288V. Boost clocks are 5.90 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. The TDP difference is large: 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE versus 30 W for the Ultra 9 288V.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 9 273PQE, Intel BGA 2833 for the Ultra 9 288V. The Core 9 273PQE supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 9 288V supports PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9 273PQE, LPDDR5X only for the Ultra 9 288V. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 273PQE but not on the Ultra 9 288V.

The market segments differ: the Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part, while the Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part. The release dates differ by about 18 months, with the Ultra 9 288V released in September 2024 and the Core 9 273PQE in March 2026. The Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589; the Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.