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

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts and thread counts differ between the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA?

A: The Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA has 14 cores but only 14 threads, meaning it does not support simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock, and what is the difference?

A: The Core 9 273PTE boosts to 5.50 GHz, which is 0.50 GHz higher than the Core Ultra 5 235TA's 5.00 GHz boost. The Core 9 also has a lower base clock of 1.40 GHz compared to 2.20 GHz on the Ultra 5.

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings for these two desktop chips?

A: The Core 9 273PTE is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA has a higher 65 W TDP rating.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory and what memory types does each support?

A: The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory and works with both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 235TA does not support ECC memory and only supports DDR5.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 9 273PTE includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has a launch MSRP of $549, and the Core Ultra 5 235TA has a launch MSRP of $269.

The Verdict

The benchmark database contains no recorded scores for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA, and the head-to-head comparison shows zero wins for either processor. This makes a direct performance verdict impossible from measured data alone. However, the Intel Core 9 273PTE has extensive benchmark results, an average benchmark score of 31143, and sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. In contrast, the Ultra 5 235TA has no benchmark entries and a percentile ranking of 50 with an average score of zero, indicating it has not been tested in the database.

For users selecting strictly from the available data, the Core 9 273PTE is the only processor with verified performance numbers. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-12700F (average score 31081, delta 0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS (average score 31074, delta 0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-13700TE (average score 31028, delta 0.4%). The Core 9 273PTE edges out all three by narrow margins, while trailing the Intel Core i7-12650HX (average score 31290) by 0.5%. This places the Core 9 273PTE in a competitive mid-range position where it trades blows with established chips.

The Core Ultra 5 235TA, by contrast, offers a newer architecture (Arrow Lake on a 3 nm TSMC node) and a higher core count of 14, but lacks benchmark verification. Its 14 threads and lower boost clock of 5.00 GHz, combined with a 65 W TDP and no ECC support, suggest it targets a different segment. The recorded data does not support a performance conclusion for the Ultra 5, so any choice between these two must rely on the Core 9's verified results versus the Ultra 5's unmeasured specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the wins counter shows zero for both processors. The database records no direct comparisons between the Core 9 273PTE and the Core Ultra 5 235TA. Consequently, every benchmark score available belongs exclusively to the Core 9 273PTE, whose results can be analyzed against its nearest rivals but not against the Ultra 5.

For the Core 9 273PTE, the strongest multi-core result comes from Cinebench R23, where it scores 20445 in multicore and 2886 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it reaches 8586 multicore and 1212 single-core, while Cinebench R15 shows 2060 multicore and 290 single-core. PassMark tests reveal a multithread score of 24054, a single-thread score of 3433, and a physics score of 1917. Integer math reaches 82411, floating-point math 60673, and extended instructions 15952. Data compression hits 258704, data encryption 14253, random string sorting 28973, and prime number finding only 142.

These figures establish the Core 9 273PTE as a capable desktop processor, but without Ultra 5 scores, no head-to-head deltas or percentage advantages can be computed. The database simply lacks the necessary measurements for the Ultra 5, so any comparison of benchmark performance between the two is unsupported. The only quantitative relationships available are those between the Core 9 273PTE and its nearest rivals, where it leads the i7-12700F and Ryzen 9 8945HS by 0.2% and the i7-13700TE by 0.4%, while losing to the i7-12650HX by 0.5%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores with 24 threads, whereas the Ultra 5 235TA has 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating no hyper-threading. Base clocks stand at 1.40 GHz for the Core 9 and 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 5, while boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively. TDP ratings diverge significantly: 45 W for the Core 9 versus 65 W for the Ultra 5.

Socket compatibility separates them entirely. The Core 9 273PTE fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 235TA requires Intel Socket 1851. Memory support also differs: the Core 9 works with both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 only supports DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 5 at 102.4 GB/s compared to the Core 9's 89.6 GB/s, though both use dual-channel buses. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 but not on the Ultra 5.

PCIe lanes differ as well: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 9 and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU for the Ultra 5. The Ultra 5 also carries a larger process node advantage (3 nm from TSMC) versus the Core 9's 10 nm from Intel, and it has a stated transistor count of 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 9 lists no transistor or die size data. Both processors are locked (multiplier unlocked: false) and target the desktop market.

Architecture Differences

The Core 9 273PTE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Ultra 5 235TA uses Arrow Lake-S under the Arrow Lake architecture. Process nodes are a major split: the Core 9 uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 5 uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The foundry also differs, with Intel manufacturing the Core 9 and TSMC manufacturing the Ultra 5.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Core 9 273PTE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 235TA has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the Core 9 has a 12 MB larger L3 pool, while the Ultra 5 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

The Ultra 5's architecture is newer and more advanced in process technology, with a dramatically smaller transistor geometry. It also includes a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. The Core 9's architecture, while older and on a larger node, supports ECC memory and DDR4, which the Ultra 5 lacks. Neither processor has a 3D V-Cache option, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 5's Arrow Lake architecture uses a hybrid design with 14 cores and 14 threads, whereas Bartlett Lake on the Core 9 pairs 12 cores with 24 threads, suggesting the Core 9 relies on hyper-threading to achieve its thread count.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Core 9 273PTE wins in every measurable benchmark category, simply because it has benchmark scores and the Ultra 5 has none. The Core 9's strengths include a higher boost clock (5.50 GHz vs 5.00 GHz), ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, a larger shared L3 cache (36 MB vs 24 MB), and a lower TDP (45 W vs 65 W). Its 24 threads give it a multithreading advantage in workloads that scale with thread count, and its average benchmark score of 31143 places it at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs.

The Ultra 5 235TA wins on specification points where it holds clear advantages: more cores (14 vs 12), a smaller process node (3 nm vs 10 nm), higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s), more PCIe lanes (20 vs 16), larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, a higher base clock (2.20 GHz vs 1.40 GHz), and a lower launch MSRP of $269. It also uses a newer socket (1851) and architecture (Arrow Lake), and its integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU likely offers different graphical capabilities than the UHD Graphics 730, though no benchmark data confirms this.

For use cases where verified performance matters, such as rendering, math workloads, or data compression, the Core 9 273PTE is the only choice with evidence. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20445 and PassMark multithread score of 24054 indicate solid parallel performance for desktop tasks. The Ultra 5 235TA, lacking any benchmark data, cannot be recommended for performance-critical workloads from this database. For users prioritizing newer process technology, higher core counts, faster memory bandwidth, or lower cost, the Ultra 5's specifications offer theoretical advantages, but those remain unverified by measurements. The data supports the Core 9 for any scenario requiring confirmed results, while the Ultra 5's merits rest entirely on its specification sheet, not on recorded performance.