Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T wins every single recorded comparison. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 245T takes all 17 wins, leaving the Intel Core 9 273PTE with zero victories. The margin varies significantly by workload, from a modest 7.1% gap in integer math to a dominant 56.2% lead in prime number finding.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Core Ultra 5 245T consistently holds a 22% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 26208 against 20445 for the Core 9, a 22% delta. Single-core performance shows the same pattern: 3699 versus 2886 in Cinebench R23 single-core, again a 22% gap. The R20 results mirror this exactly, with the Ultra 5 posting 11007 multicore and 1553 single-core versus 8586 and 1212 for the Core 9. Even in Cinebench R15, the older test, the same 22% delta appears in both multicore (2641 vs 2060) and single-core (372 vs 290). The consistency of this 22% margin across all three Cinebench generations suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results show a wider spread of margins. The largest gap is in find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 scores 324 against 142, a 56.2% lead. Floating point math also heavily favors the Ultra 5, with 108499 versus 60673, a 44.1% delta. Data encryption shows a 39.7% advantage for the Ultra 5 (23656 vs 14253), while extended instructions come in at 27.7% (22071 vs 15952). Random string sorting favors the Ultra 5 by 17.1% (34931 vs 28973), and physics by 15.8% (2278 vs 1917).

The closest margins appear in integer-heavy workloads. PassMark integer math shows the Ultra 5 at 88676 versus 82411, a 7.1% edge. Data compression is nearly as tight, with 283812 versus 258704, an 8.8% gap. Multithread performance sits at 30833 versus 24054, a 22% delta, while single-thread performance shows 4367 versus 3433, a 21.4% gap. These narrow margins in integer math and compression indicate that the Core 9 273PTE remains competitive in certain scalar integer tasks, though it still loses every contest.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 5 245T averages 38194 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Core 9 273PTE averages 31143. That places the Ultra 5 in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 82nd percentile for the Core 9. The nearest rival data reinforces this positioning: the Core 9 273PTE sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-12650HX, while the Ultra 5 lands within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core i5-13600KF.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T wins all 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 9 273PTE records zero wins across the entire benchmark suite.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 26208 versus 20445, a 22% advantage. The same 22% delta appears in Cinebench R15, R20, and PassMark multithread tests.

Q: Is the Core 9 273PTE competitive in any specific workload?

A: The closest margins are in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 leads by only 7.1% (88676 vs 82411), and data compression, where the lead is 8.8% (283812 vs 258704). These are the narrowest gaps in the data.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest gap, with the Ultra 5 scoring 324 versus 142, a 56.2% lead. Floating point math is second at 44.1% (108499 vs 60673).

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has an average score of 31143, within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS. The Ultra 5 averages 38194, within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 250 and 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-14490F.

Q: What percentile do these CPUs occupy in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245T sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PTE sits in the 82nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference, 10 nm versus 3 nm, is significant and likely drives much of the performance gap.

The transistor counts reflect the manufacturing differences. The Ultra 5 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, though the Core 9's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Core 9 uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 uses 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3. So the Core 9 has more L3 cache overall, while the Ultra 5 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Socket compatibility separates the two completely. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable platforms. Memory support differs as well: the Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. Both run dual-channel memory, but the Ultra 5 has a higher recorded memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. Both support ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ in capability tier. The Core 9 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. PCIe support also differs: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts present an interesting contrast. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning it supports simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 5 245T has 14 cores and 14 threads, with no multithreading. So the Core 9 has fewer physical cores but double the thread count per core, while the Ultra 5 has more physical cores but one thread per core. The benchmark results show that the Ultra 5's 14 physical cores outperform the Core 9's 12 cores with hyperthreading in every measured workload.

Clock speeds favor the Core 9 in terms of boost ceiling. The Core 9 has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Ultra 5 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Core 9 boosts 0.40 GHz higher, yet it loses in single-thread benchmarks by 21.4% (PassMark single-thread: 4367 vs 3433). This indicates that the architectural efficiency of the Ultra 5 outweighs the Core 9's higher peak frequency.

Thermal design power favors the Core 9 on paper. The Core 9 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Ultra 5 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Ultra 5 draws more power but delivers substantially higher performance. The release dates differ by over a year: the Ultra 5 launched on 2025-01-06, while the Core 9 launched on 2026-03-08. Both are listed as Active in production status and target the Desktop market segment. The launch MSRP for the Core 9 273PTE is $549, and for the Ultra 5 245T it is $270.

The part numbers differ as well: the Core 9 uses SA4QJ, and the Ultra 5 uses SRVFF. The Core 9 has no recorded series name, while the Ultra 5 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T wins in every measurable category. There is no benchmark in the database where the Core 9 273PTE takes the lead. However, the scale of the Ultra 5's advantage varies by workload type, which allows for some practical differentiation.

For multi-threaded productivity workloads, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice. Its 22% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore (26208 vs 20445) and PassMark multithread (30833 vs 24054) shows strong scaling across all cores. The 44.1% lead in floating point math (108499 vs 60673) makes it particularly well-suited for scientific computing, rendering, and simulation tasks that rely heavily on FPU throughput.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ultra 5 also leads. The 21.4% advantage in PassMark single-thread (4367 vs 3433) and the 22% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (3699 vs 2886) indicate better per-core efficiency. This matters for everyday desktop use, lightly threaded applications, and older software that cannot use many cores.

For integer-heavy workloads, the gap narrows considerably. PassMark integer math shows only a 7.1% lead for the Ultra 5 (88676 vs 82411), and data compression shows an 8.8% lead (283812 vs 258704). In these specific tasks, the Core 9 273PTE is much closer to parity, suggesting that workloads dominated by scalar integer operations do not benefit as much from the Ultra 5's architectural advantages.

For encryption and specialized instruction workloads, the Ultra 5 dominates. Data encryption shows a 39.7% lead (23656 vs 14253), and extended instructions show a 27.7% lead (22071 vs 15952). Prime number finding, which can be sensitive to both architecture and clock speed, shows the largest gap at 56.2% (324 vs 142).

The Core 9 273PTE does have one structural advantage: it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 only. This gives the Core 9 flexibility for builds reusing older DDR4 memory, even though the Ultra 5 has higher recorded memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s).

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a decisive outcome. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T outperforms the Intel Core 9 273PTE in every benchmark in the database, with an average score of 38194 versus 31143. That is a 22.6% advantage in average score, and it places the Ultra 5 in the 86th percentile of all CPUs versus the 82nd percentile for the Core 9.

The Core 9 273PTE does have redeeming qualities that are not reflected in raw performance. Its 45 watt TDP is lower than the Ultra 5's 65 watt TDP, which could matter for compact builds with limited cooling. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering platform flexibility for users migrating from older systems. Its 5.50 GHz boost clock is 0.40 GHz higher than the Ultra 5's 5.10 GHz, and its 36 MB of L3 cache is 12 MB larger. These attributes do not translate into benchmark wins, but they may influence platform decisions.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the choice is clear: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T wins every recorded comparison, often by wide margins. The 56.2% lead in prime number finding, the 44.1% lead in floating point math, and the consistent 22% lead across all Cinebench versions indicate a fundamentally stronger architecture. The 3 nm process node from TSMC, larger per-core caches, and higher memory bandwidth all contribute to this result.

The Core 9 273PTE is positioned closer to its nearest rivals: it sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS. The Ultra 5, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core i5-14490F, all within 0.1% to 0.2%. The performance class of the Ultra 5 is simply a step above.

The decision ultimately depends on platform priorities. The Ultra 5 requires Socket 1851 and DDR5 memory, while the Core 9 works with Socket 1700 and either DDR4 or DDR5. For a new build with no legacy components, the Ultra 5 offers superior performance in every benchmark. For an upgrade path that must retain DDR4 memory or an existing Socket 1700 board, the Core 9 remains functional, but the data shows a substantial performance cost. The benchmark results, not expectations, define the outcome: the Core Ultra 5 245T is the faster processor across the board.