Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE records an average benchmark score of 31143, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL averages 13061, which puts it in the 68th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PTE scores 20445 versus 8742 for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, a lead of 133.9%. The PassMark multithread test shows a similar 133.9% advantage, with scores of 24054 and 10285.

Q: Are these two processors close in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 9 273PTE leads in most single-core tests by a wide margin, but PassMark single-thread shows only a 1.5% difference: 3433 versus 3382. This is the smallest gap between the two chips in any recorded test.

Q: What socket do these processors use?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not socket-compatible with each other.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE boosts to 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL boosts to 4.20 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families and manufacturing nodes. The Core 9 273PTE is built on Bartlett Lake using a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses the Meteor Lake-PS architecture on a 7 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the newer 7 nm process gives the Ultra 3 a denser transistor layout.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 9 273PTE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL provides 8 cores and 10 threads. This thread advantage, nearly 2.4 times, explains much of the multi-threaded performance gap. The Core 9 also carries a larger shared L3 cache: 36 MB versus 10 MB. Per-core L1 cache is larger on the Ultra 3 at 112 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, but both share the same 2 MB per-core L2 allocation.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 only, with capacity depending on the motherboard. Both run dual-channel memory with identical peak bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core 9 adds ECC memory support; the Ultra 3 does not.

PCIe connectivity also separates the two. The Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This difference matters for expansion options and storage bandwidth. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 3 uses Arc Xe-LPG 48EU, which is a more capable graphics block.

The Core 9 273PTE is a desktop part with a 45 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $549. The Core Ultra 3 105UL is also a desktop part but draws only 15 W TDP and has a launch MSRP of $295. Both ship with locked multipliers. The Ultra 3 launched in April 2024, while the Core 9 arrived in March 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep: the Core 9 273PTE wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margins vary considerably by workload, and the pattern reveals where the architecture differences matter most.

Cinebench results are consistently one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 9 scores 2060 versus 881, a 133.8% lead. Single-core in R15 shows 290 versus 124, a 133.9% gap. R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 8586 versus 3671, up 133.9%. R20 single-core shows 1212 versus 518, a 134% lead. R23 multi-core delivers 20445 versus 8742, again 133.9%, and R23 single-core gives 2886 versus 1234, also 133.9%. These consistent margins indicate the Core 9 holds its advantage across rendering workloads of varying thread counts.

PassMark tests show the widest gaps in specialized workloads. Extended instructions favor the Core 9 by 183.1%, with scores of 15952 versus 5634. Prime number finding shows the largest relative gap of all: 142 versus 44, a 222.7% advantage. Physics simulation scores 1917 versus 718, a 167% lead. Random string sorting reaches 28973 versus 11179, up 159.2%. Data compression shows 258704 versus 93961, a 175.3% margin. Data encryption records 14253 versus 6354, up 124.3%.

Math-heavy tests are closer but still firmly in favor of the Core 9. Floating point math scores 60673 versus 30750, a 97.3% lead. Integer math delivers 82411 versus 41171, up 100.2%. These are the smallest relative wins outside the single-thread tests.

The passmark single-thread results (listed twice in the database as separate entries) show the tightest contest: 3433 versus 3382, a 1.5% edge for the Core 9. This near-tie is notable because every other benchmark shows at least a 97% gap. It suggests that when only one thread is active and the workload is not cache-sensitive, the two architectures perform nearly identically.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 12 (Core 9 273PTE) versus 8 (Core Ultra 3 105UL)
• Threads: 24 versus 10
• Base clock: 1.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.50 GHz versus 4.20 GHz
• TDP: 45 W versus 15 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Meteor Lake-PS
• Process node: 10 nm versus 7 nm
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 112 KB per core
• L3 cache: 36 MB shared versus 10 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only
• ECC memory: Supported versus not supported
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes versus Gen 4, 8 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG 48EU
• Release date: March 2026 versus April 2024
• Launch MSRP: $549 versus $295
• Part number: SA4QJ versus SRN9D
• Series: None listed versus Core Ultra Series 1

Fields that match include dual-channel memory bus, 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, 2 MB per-core L2 cache, Intel as manufacturer, desktop market segment, active production status, and locked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PTE wins every recorded benchmark, so the practical question is how much of a lead matters for a given use case.

For heavily parallel workloads, the Core 9 is the clear choice. Rendering, video encoding, data compression, and physics simulation all rely on multi-thread scaling. The 133.9% to 222.7% margins in these tests come directly from the 12-core, 24-thread configuration and the larger 36 MB L3 cache. The 175.3% data compression win and 167% physics win indicate strong throughput when all cores are active.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the difference narrows dramatically. The PassMark single-thread score of 3433 versus 3382, a 1.5% gap, means everyday lightly threaded tasks will feel similar. However, the Cinebench single-core tests tell a different story, with the Core 9 leading by 133.9%. The discrepancy likely reflects the differences in how the two workloads use the memory hierarchy and instruction paths.

The Core Ultra 3 105UL wins on efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is one third of the Core 9's 45 W TDP. For compact desktop builds, silent systems, or always-on machines where power draw and heat output are primary constraints, the Ultra 3 offers a usable desktop experience with far lower thermal requirements. Its Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics also provides a stronger iGPU option than the UHD Graphics 730, which matters for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Core 9 273PTE sits near the Core i7-12700F in the database, with a 0.2% higher average score, and also edges the Ryzen 9 8945HS by 0.2%. The Ultra 3 105UL matches the Core i5-9400F at 0.2% above, and trails the Core i7-7700K by 1.7%. These rival positions place the Core 9 in upper-midrange desktop territory and the Ultra 3 in the budget-performance segment.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is the faster processor in every tested workload, with lead margins ranging from 1.5% in PassMark single-thread to 222.7% in prime number finding. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 36 MB L3 cache, Gen 5 PCIe, and DDR4/DDR5 flexibility make it the appropriate pick for multi-threaded desktop workloads, ECC-capable builds, or systems that need high boost clocks up to 5.50 GHz.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is the efficiency-oriented alternative. Its 15 W TDP, 7 nm process, and newer socket mean it fits into low-power desktop designs where the Core 9's 45 W TDP would be excessive. The near-parity in PassMark single-thread performance, 3382 versus 3433, means the Ultra 3 does not feel dramatically slower in basic single-threaded tasks. The Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics is also the stronger iGPU of the two.

Socket compatibility is a deciding factor for upgrades. The Core 9 uses Socket 1700, the Ultra 3 uses Socket 1851. A system built around one platform cannot swap to the other without a motherboard change. The Core 9's launch MSRP of $549 reflects its higher core count and feature set, while the Ultra 3's $295 launch MSRP positions it as the lower-cost entry point. Both processors remain in active production.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, rendering, compression, or encryption, the Core 9 273PTE is the only choice between these two. For users prioritizing low power draw, compact cooling, or iGPU capability, the Core Ultra 3 105UL serves that role. The benchmark data does not show any workload category where the Ultra 3 outperforms the Core 9, so the decision rests on power, platform, and feature requirements rather than performance.