Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 9 273PQE dominates this comparison, winning 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. Its largest advantage appears in integer-heavy workloads: PassMark integer math shows a 77.8% lead (164629 vs 92603), and data compression shows a 51.5% edge (585752 vs 386591). Extended instruction throughput also favors the desktop part by 23.7% (38743 vs 31315). The Cinebench suite is consistent, with the Core 9 273PQE holding a 20.4% advantage across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests alike. Multi-core results range from 3950 in R15 to 39190 in R23 for the 273PQE, versus 3281 to 32553 for the Ultra X9 378H. Floating point math is closer at 9.6% (125546 vs 114500), and the single-thread PassMark gap narrows to just 2.7% (4573 vs 4453). Random string sorting favors the 273PQE by 19.1% (53167 vs 44648), and PassMark multithread shows a 20.4% edge (46107 vs 38298).

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins three tests, and each reveals a different strength. Prime number finding is its standout result: 357 vs 198, a 44.5% advantage. Physics simulation also favors the mobile chip by 19.1% (3404 vs 2754). Data encryption is effectively a tie, with the Ultra X9 378H ahead by 0.7% (29840 vs 29636). These wins are narrow or workload-specific, but they show the Panther Lake part is not without merit in specialized tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66099, compared to 47468 for the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H. The desktop chip also sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the mobile chip sits at the 89th.

Q: How does the Core 9 273PQE compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database places it within 1.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855), the AMD EPYC 4465P (66925), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus (66159), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914). Its own average score of 66099 is 0.3% above the Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

Q: What are the nearest competitors for the Core Ultra X9 378H?

A: Its average score of 47468 sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i9-12900F (47176), the Intel Core i7-13700KF (47330), the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (47527), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T (47697).

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The desktop part therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, while the mobile part does not.

Q: How do the process nodes differ?

A: The Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm node, while the Ultra X9 378H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Q: What memory types do the two support?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X in dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lines and are built for different sockets. The Core 9 273PQE is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, codenamed Bartlett Lake, with a 125 W TDP. The Ultra X9 378H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540, codenamed Panther Lake, with a 25 W TDP. That TDP difference explains much of the performance gap, but the underlying designs differ substantially.

Process technology is the clearest split: the Bartlett Lake chip uses a 10 nm node, while Panther Lake uses a 3 nm node. Despite the smaller transistor geometry, the mobile chip cannot match the desktop part in most throughput tests. Cache organization also diverges. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X9 378H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the desktop chip is a major factor in its compression and integer math leads.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PQE accepts DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ultra X9 378H uses LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the desktop part but not on the mobile part. PCIe connectivity also differs: the desktop chip offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the mobile chip offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are not shared either, with the 273PQE using UHD Graphics 770 and the 378H using Arc B390.

The release dates are close, with the Core 9 273PQE appearing in March 2026 and the Ultra X9 378H in April 2026. Both are marked as Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The desktop part carries the part number SA4Q9, while the mobile part lists its part number as unknown.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the stronger processor in nearly every measured category. Its 20.4% lead across the full Cinebench suite, its 77.8% edge in integer math, and its 51.5% advantage in data compression make it the choice for compute-heavy desktop workloads. The 93rd percentile standing among all CPUs reinforces that position. For users who need raw multi-threaded throughput, long render times, or heavy data processing, the 273PQE is the clear pick.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H is not without arguments in its favor. Its 44.5% lead in prime number finding and 19.1% lead in physics simulation show that its 16 cores, even without hyperthreading, can outperform in certain integer and simulation tasks. Its 25 W TDP, 3 nm node, and LPDDR5X support with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth make it a far more power-efficient part. For mobile deployments where battery life and thermals matter more than peak throughput, the 378H is the logical selection. The 89th percentile still places it among capable processors, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700KF and the Intel Core i9-12900F, both respected desktop chips.

The decision comes down to platform. The 273PQE is a desktop processor with a 125 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $589, designed for Socket 1700. The 378H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, soldered to BGA 2540, and no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Anyone building a desktop workstation should choose the 273PQE. Anyone designing a laptop or compact mobile system should choose the 378H.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.90 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | None recorded |

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in all Cinebench tests, all multi-threaded throughput tests, and most single-thread tests. Its biggest margins are in integer math, data compression, and extended instructions. This makes it the preferred part for rendering, compiling, data compression, scientific computing, and any workload that scales with thread count and large shared L3 cache.

The Ultra X9 378H wins in prime number finding, physics simulation, and data encryption. The prime number result is a 44.5% margin, the largest win for either chip in any single test. Physics simulation favors it by 19.1%, and encryption is a marginal 0.7% edge. These results suggest the mobile chip has a different execution profile, likely tied to its newer 3 nm process and higher per-core L1 and L2 caches. For workloads that rely on branch-heavy integer loops, physics solvers, or cryptographic operations, the 378H delivers competitive or better performance while consuming only a fraction of the power.

The single-thread PassMark result is nearly even, with the 273PQE ahead by just 2.7%. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the two chips are close in raw single-core capability, despite the desktop part's higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The 273PQE's 20.4% multi-thread lead in Cinebench and PassMark multithread confirms that its advantage grows as more threads are utilized.