Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL Comparison

Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL: Benchmark Database Analysis

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL also has 12 cores but only 14 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare between the two CPUs?

A: The Core 9 273PTE boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: What are the power targets for these processors?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has a TDP of 45 watts, whereas the Core Ultra 5 125UL has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 125UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics are included in each chip?

A: The Core 9 273PTE includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 125UL includes Arc Xe-LPG 64EU.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity on each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two Intel desktop processors. The Intel Core 9 273PTE, with its 24 threads, 5.50 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB L3 cache, delivers substantially higher multi-threaded performance than the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL. The Core 9 273PTE sits at the 82nd percentile across all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL sits at the 50th percentile. The Core 9 273PTE also holds a significant advantage in memory bandwidth, cache capacity, PCIe connectivity, and ECC support, making it the choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput and data integrity.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL, however, operates at a much lower 15 W TDP compared to the 45 W TDP of the Core 9 273PTE. For power-sensitive deployments where energy efficiency takes priority over raw compute, the Ultra 5 125UL presents a compelling option. Its integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics also provide a more capable GPU solution than the UHD Graphics 730 found on the Core 9 273PTE. The Ultra 5 125UL uses a newer 7 nm process node versus the 10 nm node of the Core 9 273PTE, which contributes to its lower power profile.

Selecting between them depends entirely on the workload. For heavy multi-threaded rendering, data compression, or encryption tasks, the Core 9 273PTE delivers the required performance. For compact, low-power systems where integrated graphics performance and thermal efficiency matter most, the Ultra 5 125UL is the appropriate choice. The data indicates no single winner across all metrics; each processor excels in different areas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark comparison in the database contains no direct test scores for the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL, as its benchmark array is empty. All measurable performance data comes from the Intel Core 9 273PTE, which provides a complete set of Cinebench and PassMark results. The Core 9 273PTE achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,445 and a single-core score of 2,886. In Cinebench R20, it scores 8,586 multi-core and 1,212 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 2,060 multi-core and 290 single-core.

PassMark results for the Core 9 273PTE further quantify its capabilities. The multi-thread score reaches 24,054, and the single-thread score is 3,433. Integer math performance registers 82,411, while floating-point math scores 60,673. Data compression tests yield a score of 258,704, and data encryption scores 14,253. Extended instructions score 15,952, and random string sorting finishes at 28,973. The physics test returns 1,917, and the prime number finding test scores 142.

Since the Ultra 5 125UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, direct numerical comparisons between the two are not possible. The nearest rivals to the Core 9 273PTE provide context for its performance level. The Core i7-12700F has an average score of 31,081, which is 0.2% behind the Core 9 273PTE's average of 31,143. The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS scores 31,074, also 0.2% behind. The Core i7-13700TE averages 31,028, 0.4% behind. The Core i7-12650HX scores 31,290, which puts it 0.5% ahead of the Core 9 273PTE. These margins indicate the Core 9 273PTE performs competitively within its immediate performance class, nearly matching or slightly trailing several established processors.

The absence of benchmark data for the Ultra 5 125UL means its performance relative to the Core 9 273PTE cannot be quantified from the database. The percentile ranking of 50 for the Ultra 5 125UL versus 82 for the Core 9 273PTE, combined with the thread count difference (14 versus 24) and boost clock difference (4.30 GHz versus 5.50 GHz), suggests the Core 9 273PTE holds a decisive advantage in raw compute throughput. The lower TDP of the Ultra 5 125UL, however, indicates a design focused on power efficiency rather than peak performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, while the Ultra 5 125UL uses 12 cores with 14 threads. This thread count difference stems from the Core 9 273PTE supporting Hyper-Threading on all cores, while the Ultra 5 125UL has fewer threads than cores times two, indicating a different core topology.

Clock speeds show a significant gap. The Core 9 273PTE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Ultra 5 125UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The 1.20 GHz boost clock advantage for the Core 9 273PTE translates directly into higher single-thread performance potential.

Power consumption differs by a factor of three. The Core 9 273PTE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Ultra 5 125UL has a TDP of 15 watts. This makes the Ultra 5 125UL suitable for passively cooled or fanless designs where the Core 9 273PTE would require active cooling.

Socket compatibility separates the two entirely. The Core 9 273PTE fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable platforms, requiring different motherboards for each processor.

Cache allocation shows substantial differences. The Core 9 273PTE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 125UL provides 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 273PTE has three times the L3 cache capacity, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support distinguishes them as well. Both support dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5, with capacity depending on the motherboard. The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 125UL does not.

PCIe connectivity favors the Core 9 273PTE, which offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Ultra 5 125UL offers Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This difference affects potential GPU bandwidth and expansion capabilities. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 9 273PTE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Ultra 5 125UL using Arc Xe-LPG 64EU.

The release dates and launch MSRPs reflect their market positioning. The Core 9 273PTE has a launch MSRP of $549 and was released in 2026. The Ultra 5 125UL has a launch MSRP of $309 and was released in 2024. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture with the codename Bartlett Lake, part of the Core 9 generation. The Ultra 5 125UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture with the codename Meteor Lake-PS, part of the Core Ultra Series 1 generation. These represent distinct design families from Intel with different microarchitectural approaches.

The manufacturing process differs by node size. The Core 9 273PTE is fabricated on a 10 nm process node. The Ultra 5 125UL is fabricated on a 7 nm process node. The smaller 7 nm node typically allows for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency, which aligns with the Ultra 5 125UL's lower 15 W TDP.

Both processors are manufactured by Intel, and both are classified as desktop market segment parts with active production status. Neither processor includes 3D V-Cache technology. Transistor counts and die sizes are not recorded in the database for either chip.

The core topology differences extend beyond thread counts. The Core 9 273PTE's 24 threads from 12 cores indicates a consistent 2:1 thread-to-core ratio across all cores. The Ultra 5 125UL's 14 threads from 12 cores suggests a hybrid arrangement, likely combining performance cores with hyper-threading and efficiency cores without hyper-threading. This architectural split explains the lower thread count despite equal core count.

The L1 cache difference supports this interpretation. The Ultra 5 125UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, which is larger than the Core 9 273PTE's 80 KB per core. Different core types within the Meteor Lake design may account for this variation. The L2 cache is identical at 2 MB per core for both processors.

The L3 cache difference of 36 MB versus 12 MB reflects the different design goals. The larger L3 cache on the Core 9 273PTE supports its higher TDP and performance-oriented positioning. The smaller L3 cache on the Ultra 5 125UL contributes to its lower power consumption and smaller die footprint.

Integrated graphics architectures differ as well. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, a more traditional Intel graphics solution. The Ultra 5 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, which leverages Intel's newer Arc graphics architecture. This newer GPU architecture likely provides better media encoding and decoding capabilities, though specific performance figures are not recorded in the database.

The PCIe generation difference of Gen 4 versus Gen 5 reflects the platform capabilities of each socket. Socket 1851 on the Ultra 5 125UL platform may prioritize power efficiency and integrated connectivity, while Socket 1700 on the Core 9 273PTE supports the higher-bandwidth Gen 5 interface for discrete GPUs and NVMe storage. The 16 CPU lanes on the Core 9 273PTE versus 8 CPU lanes on the Ultra 5 125UL further emphasize the performance-oriented versus efficiency-oriented design split.