Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H represent two distinct Intel design philosophies, one a high-power desktop processor and the other a low-power mobile part. The benchmark data reveals a massive performance gulf between them, with the desktop chip winning 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The 273PQE is positioned as a high-performance desktop processor, while the 386H is designed for mobile efficiency. The data suggests these are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but rather solutions for different physical and power-constrained environments.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the clear performance leader in the database. Its average benchmark score of 66099 places it at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 386H scores 43210, landing at the 88th percentile. The 273PQE’s nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, are within a 0.3% to 1.2% delta of its average score, indicating it sits in elite desktop territory. The 386H, conversely, is bracketed by mobile and older desktop parts like the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and Intel Core i9-12900, showing it competes in a different performance class.

For users requiring maximum multi-threaded throughput, the 273PQE is the only choice. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 is 90.7% higher than the 386H’s 20547, a near-doubling of performance. However, the 386H wins two niche tests: PassMark find prime numbers (341 vs 198) and PassMark physics (3028 vs 2754). This indicates the 386H has a specific advantage in certain integer-heavy or simulation workloads, despite its overall lower performance. The 386H also consumes significantly less power, with a 25 W TDP versus the 273PQE’s 125 W, making it suitable for compact, battery-powered systems where the 273PQE’s desktop platform is not feasible.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the 386H uses the newer Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm node. This process difference is significant; the 3 nm node allows the 386H to pack more features into a lower power envelope, but the 10 nm Bartlett Lake chip compensates with much higher clock speeds and a larger cache hierarchy.

The 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, whereas the 386H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning the 386H lacks Hyper-Threading. The 273PQE’s base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 5.90 GHz dwarf the 386H’s 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The 273PQE also has a larger L3 cache at 36 MB shared, compared to 18 MB shared on the 386H. However, the 386H has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches: 192 KB and 2.5 MB per core, versus 80 KB and 2 MB per core on the 273PQE. This suggests the 386H’s cores are designed for efficiency and lower latency per-core operations, while the 273PQE relies on raw clock speed and a bigger shared cache.

Memory support also differs. The 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and a higher 115.2 GB/s bandwidth but no ECC. The 273PQE uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the 386H is soldered via Intel BGA 2540, confirming the former is a desktop upgradeable part and the latter is a mobile-only solution. The 273PQE also offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 12 lanes on the 386H.

Where Each One Wins

The 273PQE dominates in nearly every multi-threaded and single-threaded application. Its wins are most pronounced in rendering, compression, and integer math. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 is a 90.7% lead, and the PassMark integer math score of 164629 is 88.6% higher than the 386H’s 87284. This makes the 273PQE the superior choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any software that scales with thread count. Its single-thread performance is also exceptional, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5532, a 167.1% advantage over the 386H’s 2071.5, indicating faster response times in everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications.

The 386H’s wins are narrow and specific. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 341 versus 198, a 41.9% advantage. This test often rewards lower-latency, higher-frequency per-core operations without the overhead of multi-threading. Its PassMark physics score of 3028 is 9% higher than the 273PQE’s 2754, suggesting better performance in certain simulation or game physics engines. These wins are not enough to offset the overall performance gap, but they indicate the 386H’s core architecture has strengths in specialized workloads. The 386H also has a lower TDP of 25 W, making it the only viable option for fanless or battery-operated designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 66099, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H’s 43210.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the 386H wins two tests: PassMark find prime numbers (341 vs 198) and PassMark physics (3028 vs 2754).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The 273PQE has a TDP of 125 W, while the 386H has a TDP of 25 W, indicating the latter is far more power-efficient.

Q: Which processor has a faster boost clock?

A: The 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, which is higher than the 386H’s 4.90 GHz boost clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic disparity is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 273PQE scores 5532 against the 386H’s 2071.5, a 167.1% delta. This test highlights the raw clock speed advantage of the desktop chip. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows a 90.7% lead for the 273PQE (39190 vs 20547), confirming its superiority in heavily threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15, the 273PQE wins multicore by 22.6% (3950 vs 3223) and single-core by 83.5% (557 vs 303.5), showing that the single-core gap persists across Cinebench versions.

In PassMark tests, the 273PQE leads integer math by 88.6% (164629 vs 87284) and data compression by 66.2% (585752 vs 352365). Its data encryption score of 29636 is 9.2% higher than the 386H’s 27150. The 273PQE also wins floating point math by 15.7% (125546 vs 108527) and extended instructions by 33% (38743 vs 29138). The multithread score is 30.2% higher (46107 vs 35399), and random string sorting is 26.2% higher (53167 vs 42135). Even in single-thread PassMark, the 273PQE wins by 8.4% (4573 vs 4218).

The 386H’s wins are isolated. Its PassMark find prime numbers score of 341 beats the 273PQE’s 198 by 41.9%. Its PassMark physics score of 3028 is 9% higher than the 273PQE’s 2754. These are the only two tests where the mobile chip comes out ahead, and they do not significantly impact the overall performance assessment, which favors the 273PQE in 15 of 17 tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every major specification. The 273PQE is a 12-core, 24-thread desktop processor with a 3.40 GHz base and 5.90 GHz boost clock, while the 386H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor with a 2.10 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm node, whereas the 386H uses Panther Lake on a 3 nm node. The 273PQE has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 36 MB shared L3; the 386H has 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support diverges: the 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, while the 386H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The 273PQE has 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 12 lanes on the 386H. The 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700 and has a 125 W TDP, while the 386H uses Intel BGA 2540 and has a 25 W TDP. The 273PQE features UHD Graphics 770, while the 386H has Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 273PQE is a desktop part released in March 2026, while the 386H is a mobile part released in January 2026. Only the 273PQE has a listed launch MSRP of $589.