Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235T records an average benchmark score of 38561, while the Core 9 273PTE records 31143. The Ultra 5 sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 9 sits at the 82nd percentile.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235T wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3703 versus 2886 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 22.1% difference. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 5 scores 4339 versus 3433, a 20.9% gap.

Q: What are the physical specifications of the two chips?

A: The Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores and 24 threads on Intel Socket 1700, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses 14 cores and 14 threads on Intel Socket 1851, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 235T supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 but not on the Ultra 5.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 5 offers 4 additional lanes for expansion.

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 235T has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 9 has the larger pool of last-level cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Core 9 273PTE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 5 235T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform.

The core and thread configurations differ significantly. The Core 9 273PTE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating support for simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 235T provides 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it operates without hyperthreading. Despite having fewer physical cores, the Ultra 5 has the higher thread count in total? No, the Core 9 has 24 threads versus 14 for the Ultra 5. However, the Ultra 5 has more physical cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PTE lists 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 235T lists 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 has a larger per-core L1 and L2 allocation, while the Core 9 has a larger total L3 pool.

Both processors use dual-channel memory, but the Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 exclusively. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 5 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Core 9 but absent on the Ultra 5.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 235T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. PCIe support is Gen 5 on both, but the lane count differs: 16 lanes on the Core 9 versus 20 lanes on the Ultra 5. Both processors have locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $549; the Ultra 5 has a launch MSRP of $247.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Core Ultra 5 235T across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It wins every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both multi-core and single-core. It also wins every PassMark test, including integer math, floating point math, data encryption, data compression, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, physics, multithread, and single-thread tests.

The Core 9 273PTE does not win a single recorded benchmark in this comparison. Its wins are zero; the Ultra 5 has 17 wins. The closest margin comes in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 scores 84244 against 82411 for the Core 9, a delta of only 2.2%. The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 318 against 142, a 55.3% advantage.

For use-case allocation, the data indicates that the Ultra 5 is the stronger choice for single-threaded workloads across the board. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3703 exceeds the Core 9's 2886 by 817 points. The same pattern holds in multithreaded workloads, where the Ultra 5 leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 26232 versus 20445. The Ultra 5 also dominates in floating point math, scoring 106546 versus 60673, a 43.1% gap. The Core 9 holds no advantage in any measured category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every major specification field. Core count: 12 on the Core 9 versus 14 on the Ultra 5. Thread count: 24 on the Core 9 versus 14 on the Ultra 5. Base clock: 1.40 GHz on the Core 9 versus 2.20 GHz on the Ultra 5. Boost clock: 5.50 GHz on the Core 9 versus 5.00 GHz on the Ultra 5. TDP: 45 W on the Core 9 versus 65 W on the Ultra 5.

Socket and platform differ entirely: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 9 versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5. Process node: 10 nm for the Core 9 versus 3 nm for the Ultra 5. Foundry: Intel for the Core 9 versus TSMC for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 reports 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 9 does not report transistor count or die size.

Cache per core differs: L1 is 80 KB per core on the Core 9 versus 192 KB per core on the Ultra 5. L2 is 2 MB per core on the Core 9 versus 3 MB per core on the Ultra 5. L3 shared is 36 MB on the Core 9 versus 24 MB on the Ultra 5.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 on the Core 9 versus DDR5 only on the Ultra 5. Memory bandwidth differs: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support differs: true on the Core 9, false on the Ultra 5. PCIe lanes differ: 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Release dates differ: the Core 9 is dated 2026-03-08; the Ultra 5 is dated 2025-01-06. Launch MSRP differs: $549 versus $247. Part numbers differ: SA4QJ versus SRQES.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent margin across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2644 against 2060 for the Core 9, a 22.1% difference. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 5 scores 373 against 290, a 22.3% difference. The same 22.1% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (11017 versus 8586) and R20 single-core (1555 versus 1212). Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 26232 versus 20445, again 22.1%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3703 versus 2886, again 22.1%.

The PassMark suite reveals a wider spread of margins. Data compression shows the Ultra 5 at 295100 versus 258704, a 12.3% lead. Data encryption shows a larger gap: 23457 versus 14253, a 39.2% lead. Extended instructions show 23212 versus 15952, a 31.3% lead. Find prime numbers shows 318 versus 142, the largest margin at 55.3%. Floating point math shows 106546 versus 60673, a 43.1% lead. Integer math is the closest test: 84244 versus 82411, only 2.2% apart.

Multithread performance in PassMark shows 30918 versus 24054, a 22.2% lead. Physics shows 2157 versus 1917, an 11.1% lead. Random string sorting shows 35377 versus 28973, an 18.1% lead. Single-thread performance shows 4339 versus 3433, a 20.9% lead. The singlethread test repeats the same scores and margin.

The data indicates that the Ultra 5 is not merely ahead in isolated tests; it wins every recorded benchmark. The smallest margin is 2.2% in integer math, and the largest is 55.3% in prime number finding. The Cinebench tests cluster tightly around a 22% advantage, while the PassMark tests range from 2.2% to 55.3%. The Core 9 273PTE records no wins in this comparison.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T. It wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 38561 versus 31143 for the Core 9 273PTE. The Ultra 5 also holds a higher percentile rank, sitting at 86 versus 82 for the Core 9.

The Ultra 5 delivers a 22.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 26232 versus 20445. It delivers a 22.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 3703 versus 2886. It delivers a 43.1% advantage in floating point math, scoring 106546 versus 60673. It delivers a 39.2% advantage in data encryption, scoring 23457 versus 14253. It delivers a 55.3% advantage in prime number finding, scoring 318 versus 142.

The Core 9 273PTE offers a larger L3 cache (36 MB versus 24 MB), ECC memory support, and DDR4 compatibility. It also has a lower TDP of 45 W versus 65 W. Its boost clock is higher at 5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. However, these features do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

The Core Ultra 5 235T provides 14 physical cores versus 12, a 3 nm process versus 10 nm, higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), and 20 PCIe lanes versus 16. It also carries a lower launch MSRP of $247 versus $549 for the Core 9.

The data indicates that systems built around the Core Ultra 5 235T will outperform those built around the Core 9 273PTE in every measured workload category. The only categories where the Core 9 shows a specification-level advantage are L3 cache size, ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, and TDP. For workloads that depend on those specific features, such as ECC memory in server-like environments, the Core 9 may be the relevant choice. For general computing, rendering, encryption, and math-heavy tasks, the Core Ultra 5 235T is the stronger processor according to the recorded measurements. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 include the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, both within 0.2% of its average score. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 include the Intel Core i5-14500, within 0.1%, and the Intel Xeon w3-2525, within 0.4%.