Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 is heavily one-sided, but not because of a close contest. The database contains a full suite of 17 benchmark scores for the Intel part, while the Qualcomm part has no recorded benchmark entries at all. This means the head-to-head analysis must rely on the Intel processor’s measured performance data and the Qualcomm processor’s specification-level standing, which the database rates at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, compared to Intel’s 93rd percentile.

Starting with raw multi-threaded performance, the Intel Core 9 273PQE delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,190. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 16,459, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,950. These are substantial numbers for a desktop processor with 12 cores and 24 threads. The single-core results are equally telling: Cinebench R23 single-core at 5,532, Cinebench R20 single-core at 2,323, and Cinebench R15 single-core at 557. These scores indicate strong per-thread performance, consistent with a boost clock of 5.90 GHz and a base clock of 3.40 GHz.

The PassMark suite reinforces the Intel part’s dominance in compute-heavy workloads. The multi-thread score is 46,107, while the single-thread score is 4,573. Integer math reaches 164,629, floating point math reaches 125,546, and extended instructions score 38,743. Data compression scores 585,752, while data encryption scores 29,636. Prime number finding is comparatively low at 198, but random string sorting reaches 53,167, and physics simulation scores 2,754. These figures paint a picture of a processor that excels in both integer and floating point workloads, with particularly strong compression and encryption throughput.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database. That does not mean the chip is incapable of computing; rather, no benchmark results have been recorded for it. The database still assigns it a percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs, which is a neutral placement, but without measured scores, no direct delta can be calculated. The Intel part’s average benchmark score is 66,099, and its nearest rivals provide context. Against the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, the Core 9 273PQE is essentially even, with a delta of -0.1%. Against the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, it leads by 0.3%. Against the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, it trails by 1.1%, and against the AMD EPYC 4465P, it trails by 1.2%. These are narrow margins, indicating that the Core 9 273PQE sits in a tightly contested performance band among desktop CPUs.

Because the Qualcomm part has no benchmark entries, the largest win for Intel is not a single test but the entire measured dataset. Every one of the 17 recorded benchmarks for Intel is a data point that the Qualcomm part cannot match, simply because no corresponding measurement exists. The database records zero wins for the Qualcomm part and zero wins for the Intel part in the head-to-head field, reflecting the absence of direct comparative tests. However, the specification-level differences suggest where each part would theoretically excel. The Qualcomm part’s 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.45 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, would likely perform strongly in heavily parallel workloads if benchmarks were recorded. The Intel part’s 12 cores and 24 threads, with Hyper-Threading-like simultaneous multithreading, offer a different threading model that often benefits from higher per-core clocks.

The Intel part’s boost clock of 5.90 GHz is the highest clock speed in this comparison. The Qualcomm part’s boost of 5.00 GHz is lower, but its base clock of 4.45 GHz is higher than Intel’s 3.40 GHz. That suggests the Qualcomm part maintains a higher minimum performance level, though its maximum frequency is lower. In single-threaded workloads where peak frequency matters, the Intel part’s 5.90 GHz would likely give it an edge. In sustained all-core workloads, the Qualcomm part’s higher base clock and additional cores could compensate, but without data, this remains speculative.

Memory bandwidth is another area where the Qualcomm part has a clear specification advantage. The Intel part supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Qualcomm part supports triple-channel memory with a bandwidth of 228.6 GB/s. That is more than double the theoretical memory throughput, which could significantly impact memory-intensive applications. However, the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Qualcomm part is limited to LPDDR5X. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which the Qualcomm part does not. For workloads that require error correction, such as certain server or scientific computing tasks, the Intel part is the only viable option here.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Qualcomm part uses Adreno X2-90. No benchmark scores for either iGPU are recorded, so a performance comparison is not possible. The Intel part is a desktop processor, while the Qualcomm part is a mobile processor, which also influences thermal and power characteristics.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the only part with measured performance in this comparison. Its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 66,099, places it firmly in the upper tier of desktop processors. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded scores, which means any performance claim about it would be unsupported by the database.

For a user who prioritizes measured, verifiable performance, the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the only choice supported by evidence. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,190 and single-core score of 5,532 are strong indicators of both multi-threaded and single-threaded capability. The PassMark integer math score of 164,629 and floating point math score of 125,546 further confirm its compute strength. The Intel part also offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Qualcomm part, which matters for data integrity in professional workflows.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100, however, has specification advantages that could matter for specific use cases. Its 18 cores and 18 threads exceed the Intel part’s 12 cores and 24 threads in raw core count. Its triple-channel memory bus and 228.6 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the Intel part’s dual-channel 89.6 GB/s. Its 3 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, is more advanced than Intel’s 10 nm node. For a mobile device where power efficiency and memory bandwidth are paramount, the Qualcomm part might be the better engineering choice, but the database provides no performance data to confirm this.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the processor with proven performance. The Qualcomm part remains an unknown quantity in this benchmark database. Users who require ECC memory, desktop form factor, or measured benchmark scores should choose the Intel part. Users who require a mobile form factor with 18 cores and high memory bandwidth should consider the Qualcomm part, but they must accept that no benchmark results validate its performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is built on Intel’s 10 nm process node at Intel’s own foundry. Its codename is Bartlett Lake, and it belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 is built on TSMC’s 3 nm process node, with a die size of 220 mm². Its codename is Glymur, and it belongs to the Snapdragon X2 (Elite) generation. The process node difference is significant: 3 nm is a more advanced manufacturing technology than 10 nm, which typically allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Intel part has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating support for simultaneous multithreading (SMT), where each physical core can execute two threads. The Qualcomm part has 18 cores and 18 threads, indicating no SMT support. This means the Intel part’s thread count exceeds its core count, while the Qualcomm part’s thread count equals its core count. In workloads that scale with thread count, the Intel part’s 24 threads could outperform its 12-core physical count suggests, but the Qualcomm part’s 18 physical cores provide more raw parallel hardware.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Qualcomm part has 288 KB of L1 cache per core, 16 MB of L2 cache per module, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part’s L3 cache is four times larger at 36 MB versus 9 MB, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. The Qualcomm part’s L1 cache is significantly larger per core, which can reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data. The L2 cache structure also differs: Intel provides 2 MB per core, while Qualcomm provides 16 MB per module, suggesting a clustered design where multiple cores share a larger L2 slice.

The memory controllers are also different. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Qualcomm part supports LPDDR5X memory over a triple-channel bus, yielding 228.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Qualcomm part’s bandwidth advantage is substantial, but it comes with a limitation: no ECC memory support. The Intel part supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive applications.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Intel part offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Qualcomm part offers PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part provides more PCIe lanes, which matters for high-bandwidth peripherals like GPUs and NVMe storage. Both support the same PCIe generation, but Intel has more lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770, while the Qualcomm part uses Adreno X2-90. No benchmark data exists for either, so architectural analysis is limited to naming. The Intel part is a desktop processor, while the Qualcomm part is a mobile processor, which implies different thermal design points and power delivery requirements.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 has 18 cores and 18 threads. Clock speeds differ: Intel has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, while Qualcomm has a base clock of 4.45 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part’s TDP is 125 watts, while the Qualcomm part’s TDP is not recorded in the database.

The socket types are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1700, while Qualcomm uses BGA 2343. The Intel part is a desktop processor, while the Qualcomm part is a mobile processor. The manufacturing process differs: Intel uses 10 nm at Intel foundry, while Qualcomm uses 3 nm at TSMC, with a die size of 220 mm² for the Qualcomm part.

Cache specifications differ: Intel has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Qualcomm has 288 KB L1 per core, 16 MB L2 per module, and 9 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while Qualcomm supports LPDDR5X with triple-channel and 228.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported by Intel but not by Qualcomm.

PCIe lanes differ: Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while Qualcomm provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Intel uses UHD Graphics 770, while Qualcomm uses Adreno X2-90. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $589, while the Qualcomm part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part’s release date is 2026-03-08, while the Qualcomm part’s release date is 2026-04-05, making the Qualcomm part slightly newer by about a month.

The Intel part is not multiplier-unlocked, and neither is the Qualcomm part. The Intel part’s part number is SA4Q9, while the Qualcomm part’s part number is X2E96100. Both processors are listed as Active in production status. No series information is recorded for either part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, which is higher than the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100’s boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 has a memory bandwidth of 228.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has recorded benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 17 recorded benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39,190 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 46,107. The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the Qualcomm Snapdragon X2E-96-100 uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.