Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE takes only 3. The margin of victory, however, is not uniform across all tests.

The Core Ultra 5 338H's largest advantage appears in PassMark's prime number search, where it scores 304 against 142 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 53.3% difference. This is the single biggest delta in the dataset. The Ultra 5 also leads by 33.3% in both data encryption (21367 vs 14253) and extended instructions (23906 vs 15952). Floating point math shows a 27.8% gap in favor of the Ultra 5 (84067 vs 60673), and physics simulation places it 28.9% ahead (2697 vs 1917).

The Cinebench results are more varied. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 scores 2504 against 2060, a 17.7% lead. The R20 multicore test shows a 15.9% advantage for the Ultra 5 (10213 vs 8586), and the R20 singlecore test also favors it by 15.9% (1441 vs 1212). The R15 singlecore gap is smaller at 4.9% (305 vs 290).

The Core 9 273PTE's wins are concentrated in two specific areas. Cinebench R23 multicore shows it ahead by 25.2% (20445 vs 16331), and R23 singlecore shows a 41.2% lead (2886 vs 2044). PassMark integer math also favors the Core 9 by 26.9% (82411 vs 64934).

Other PassMark results favor the Ultra 5: multithread 28717 vs 24054 (16.2% ahead), random string sorting 34082 vs 28973 (15% ahead), data compression 276539 vs 258704 (6.4% ahead), and single thread 4180 vs 3433 (17.9% ahead).

The average benchmark score places the Core Ultra 5 338H at 33989 with an 84th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The Core 9 273PTE averages 31143 with an 82nd percentile ranking. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 include the Intel Core i7-12700F (0.2% higher avg score) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS (0.2% higher), while the Core Ultra 5 sits 0.3% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H and 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12800HX.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename built on a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 5 338H is a Panther Lake part on a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel, but the process disparity is substantial.

Core counts are identical at 12, yet threading differs sharply. The Core 9 273PTE supports 24 threads, meaning each core handles two threads. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports 12 threads, one per core, indicating no simultaneous multithreading.

Cache organization differs in every level. The Core 9 uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 therefore has twice the L3 capacity, while the Ultra 5 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Clock speeds also diverge. The Core 9 has a 1.40 GHz base clock and a 5.50 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 5 starts higher at 1.90 GHz base but boosts lower at 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power reflects the platform difference: 45 watts for the Core 9, 25 watts for the Ultra 5.

Memory support is another major split. The Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Ultra 5 uses LPDDR5X only, also dual-channel, with a higher 136.5 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are distinct: the Core 9 embeds UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 embeds Arc B370.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part. The Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H records an average benchmark score of 33989, compared to 31143 for the Intel Core 9 273PTE.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 have 12 threads when it has 12 cores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 338H supports 12 threads total, one per core, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The Core 9 273PTE also has 12 cores but supports 24 threads, two per core.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins with a score of 2886 against 2044 for the Core Ultra 5 338H, a 41.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC memory. The Intel Core 9 273PTE does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE is built on a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is built on a 3 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, which is higher than the 89.6 GB/s of the Intel Core 9 273PTE.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PTE | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 24 | 12 |

| Base clock | 1.40 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B370 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | None |

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct performance profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H delivers the higher average score (33989 vs 31143) and wins the majority of individual tests, particularly in PassMark workloads involving encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, physics, and multithreaded throughput. Its lower TDP of 25 watts and mobile socket classify it as a laptop-oriented part.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE, despite the lower average score, shows decisive advantages in Cinebench R23 both single and multicore, plus PassMark integer math. Its 45 watt TDP, desktop socket, 16 PCIe lanes, ECC support, DDR4/DDR5 compatibility, and 36 MB of L3 cache align it with desktop workstation scenarios.

The percentile rankings place the Core Ultra 5 at 84 and the Core 9 at 82, a narrow gap. The average score difference of 2846 points (33989 minus 31143) is modest relative to the breadth of the benchmark suite.

Users who need maximum thread count and the highest boost clock (5.50 GHz) will find the Core 9 appealing. Users who prioritize per-core L1/L2 cache, higher memory bandwidth, a smaller process node, and a lower TDP will find the Core Ultra 5 compelling. The integrated graphics also differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 9 versus Arc B370 on the Ultra 5.

The Core 9's Cinebench R23 singlecore lead of 41.2% is the largest single-test margin in the entire comparison, indicating a strong burst performance capability. The Core Ultra 5's leads, by contrast, are distributed across many workloads, suggesting broader everyday responsiveness.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithreaded PassMark, physics simulation, random string sorting, single thread PassMark, and all Cinebench R15 and R20 tests. These results indicate strengths in encryption-heavy tasks, mathematical computation, and general multiworkload throughput. The 53.3% lead in prime numbers and 33.3% leads in encryption and extended instructions make it the stronger choice for security-related or computationally varied workloads.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins in Cinebench R23 multicore, Cinebench R23 singlecore, and PassMark integer math. The 41.2% singlecore R23 advantage is particularly notable, as is the 26.9% integer math lead. These results point to strengths in integer-heavy processing and sustained threaded workloads as measured by R23's rendering test.

The Core 9 also offers 24 threads versus 12, double the L3 cache (36 MB vs 18 MB), a higher boost clock (5.50 GHz vs 4.70 GHz), and 16 PCIe lanes versus 4. It supports ECC memory and both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 offers a higher base clock (1.90 GHz vs 1.40 GHz), higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s), a smaller process node (3 nm vs 10 nm), and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

For desktop builders with Socket 1700 motherboards, expansion needs, or ECC requirements, the Core 9 is the applicable part. For mobile systems requiring low power draw and high memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 5 fits that role. The benchmark data does not show one chip as universally superior; it shows two different design targets with complementary strengths.