Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H reveals two distinct performance profiles. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 255H claims 10 wins, while the Core 9 273PTE secures 7 wins. The wins are heavily stratified by workload type.

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench multi-core rendering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 273PTE scores 20,445 compared to 9,240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, a 121.3% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The gap narrows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core 9 posts 8,586 versus 6,381, a 34.6% lead, and further in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where 2,060 beats 1,515 by 36%. Single-core Cinebench results also favor the Core 9, with R23 single-core at 2,886 versus 1,843, a 56.6% margin, and R20 single-core at 1,212 versus 900, a 34.7% margin. The R15 single-core test shows a 15.5% advantage at 290 versus 251.

The Core Ultra 7 255H dominates in PassMark system-level tests. Data encryption shows the largest gap: 23,395 versus 14,253, a 39.1% deficit for the Core 9. Floating point math delivers 98,796 versus 60,673, a 38.6% difference. Find prime numbers scores 303 versus 142, a 53.1% gap. Extended instructions reach 23,755 versus 15,952, a 32.8% difference. Data compression produces 298,850 versus 258,704, a 13.4% gap. Random string sorting favors the Ultra 7 at 36,058 versus 28,973, a 19.6% difference. Multi-threaded PassMark shows 30,703 versus 24,054, a 21.7% margin, and physics scores 2,254 versus 1,917, a 15% difference. Single-thread PassMark gives the Ultra 7 a 20.5% edge at 4,317 versus 3,433.

The Core 9 takes PassMark integer math at 82,411 versus 77,975, a 5.7% margin. This is its only PassMark win.

Where Each One Wins

The split is clear: the Core 9 273PTE wins in rendering and integer workloads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H wins in encryption, compression, floating point, and system-level tasks.

The Core 9's Cinebench results indicate strong multi-threaded rendering capability. Its R23 multi-core score of 20,445 is more than double the Ultra 7's 9,240. The consistent 34-36% margins in R15 and R20 multi-core confirm this pattern. Single-core Cinebench also favors the Core 9, with a 56.6% lead in R23 single-core. For users running CPU-bound rendering tasks, the Core 9 delivers substantially higher throughput.

The Core Ultra 7 255H dominates in data processing tasks. Its data encryption score of 23,395 is 39.1% higher, and its floating point math score of 98,796 is 38.6% higher. The find prime numbers result shows a 53.1% advantage, indicating superior integer-heavy algorithm performance in that specific test. Extended instructions, which measure SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, favor the Ultra 7 by 32.8%. The multi-thread PassMark score of 30,703 versus 24,054 suggests better overall system responsiveness in mixed workloads. Single-thread PassMark at 4,317 versus 3,433 indicates faster per-thread execution in this benchmark suite.

The Core 9's integer math win (5.7%) is its only PassMark victory, suggesting its strength lies in specific rendering pipelines rather than general system tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The Core 9 273PTE is a desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel foundries, using the Bartlett Lake codename. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Core Ultra 7 255H is a mobile processor from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on TSMC's 3 nm process with the Arrow Lake-H codename. It has 16 cores but only 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. It uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket.

Cache structures differ significantly. The Core 9 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 has 50% more L3 cache, which may contribute to its rendering performance. The Ultra 7 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Memory support diverges. The Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 uses Arc Graphics 140T. The market segments reflect the design intent: the Core 9 is a desktop processor, while the Ultra 7 is mobile. The Core 9 has a TDP of 45, the Ultra 7 has a TDP of 28. The Core 9 was released in March 2026, the Ultra 7 in January 2025. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's 5.10 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core 9 273PTE scores 20,445 versus 9,240 for the Core Ultra 7 255H, a 121.3% advantage for the Core 9.

Q: Which processor performs better in PassMark data encryption?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H scores 23,395 versus 14,253 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 39.1% advantage for the Ultra 7.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 24 MB.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The Core 9 273PTE uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz for the Core 9 and 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 45 for the Core 9 and 28 for the Ultra 7.

Sockets differ: the Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2049. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 9 and 3 nm for the Ultra 7. The foundry is Intel for the Core 9 and TSMC for the Ultra 7. Codename is Bartlett Lake for the Core 9 and Arrow Lake-H for the Ultra 7.

Cache configurations differ: the Core 9 has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7.

PCIe lanes differ: 16 Gen 5 CPU lanes for the Core 9, 20 Gen 5 CPU lanes for the Ultra 7. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 9 and Arc Graphics 140T for the Ultra 7. Market segment is Desktop for the Core 9 and Mobile for the Ultra 7. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $549. The Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Core 9 was released in March 2026, the Ultra 7 in January 2025.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear workload-based selection. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is the choice for rendering and CPU-intensive compute tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,445 versus 9,240 represents a 121.3% advantage, and its single-core Cinebench results are consistently 15-56% higher. The larger 36 MB L3 cache and 24 threads support this rendering advantage. The 45 TDP and desktop socket reflect its design for sustained performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the choice for data processing and system-level tasks. Its PassMark results show consistent 13-53% advantages in encryption, floating point math, extended instructions, compression, and multi-threaded system workloads. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and larger per-core caches (192 KB L1, 3 MB L2) support these data-heavy operations. The 28 TDP and mobile BGA 2049 socket indicate a power-efficient design for portable systems.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect the balanced nature of this comparison. The Core Ultra 7 255H has an average benchmark score of 33,537 with an 83rd percentile ranking. The Core 9 273PTE has an average of 31,143 with an 82nd percentile ranking. The Ultra 7 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS and within 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-12600HX. The Core 9 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700F and within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-12650HX. Neither processor dominates its nearest rivals by more than 0.5%.

The wins tally of 7 for the Core 9 and 10 for the Ultra 7 should not be read as overall superiority. The Core 9's wins are concentrated in rendering benchmarks where its margins are often large, particularly the 121.3% Cinebench R23 multi-core result. The Ultra 7's wins are spread across system-level tasks with margins ranging from 13.4% to 53.1%. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is rendering-oriented or data-processing-oriented.