Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins every single recorded test, securing 17 wins against zero for the Intel Core 9 273PTE. The margin is not narrow; across the full suite of Cinebench and PassMark workloads, the Ultra 7 265T leads by percentages ranging from roughly one-fifth to more than half.

Starting with Cinebench, the pattern is consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 265T scores 3180 against the Core 9 273PTE's 2060, a 35.2% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 449 versus 290, a 35.4% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 13254 against 8586, again a 35.2% gap, while single-core is 1871 versus 1212, also 35.2%. Cinebench R23 follows the same trajectory: multicore 31558 versus 20445 (35.2% lead), single-core 4455 versus 2886 (35.2% lead). The consistency of that 35.2% delta across all three Cinebench versions indicates a systematic performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results show even larger gaps in several specialized tests. The most dramatic difference appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 265T scores 322 against 142, a 55.9% lead. Floating point math shows a 53.3% advantage (129817 versus 60673). Data encryption delivers 29687 versus 14253, a 52% lead. Extended instructions follow at 44.2% (28609 versus 15952). Data compression is 30.1% ahead (370158 versus 258704). Random string sorting shows a 34.7% lead (44400 versus 28973). Integer math is closer but still decisive at 21.5% (104943 versus 82411). The multithread score is 37084 versus 24054, a 35.1% lead. Physics shows 2391 versus 1917, a 19.8% advantage. Single-thread PassMark scores are 4338 versus 3433, a 20.9% lead.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this hierarchy. The Ultra 7 265T averages 47697, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 9 273PTE averages 31143, placing it in the 82nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 265T include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, which scores 47908 (a 0.4% difference), and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 at 47527 (0.4% difference). The Core 9 273PTE sits near the Intel Core i7-12700F (31081, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS (31074, 0.2% delta). This places the two processors in different performance strata entirely.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T wins in every measurable category. There is no test in the database where the Core 9 273PTE comes out ahead. That said, the magnitude of the advantage varies by workload type, which informs how each processor should be positioned.

The Ultra 7 265T shows its largest relative strengths in prime number calculation (55.9% ahead), floating point math (53.3%), and data encryption (52%). These are compute-heavy, math-intensive tasks that benefit from the processor's architecture and core configuration. For users running scientific simulations, encryption workloads, or financial modeling, the Ultra 7 265T delivers nearly double the throughput in some cases.

For integer math and single-threaded tasks, the advantage narrows to around 21%. The Core 9 273PTE is less far behind in these areas, suggesting that its per-core performance is comparatively stronger relative to its own multicore output. However, "less far behind" still means behind. In Cinebench single-core tests, the Ultra 7 265T leads by 35.2%, indicating that even lightly threaded applications favor the newer chip.

The Core 9 273PTE's closest competition, based on the database, is the Intel Core i7-12700F and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, both within 0.2% of its average score. The Ultra 7 265T, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, a much higher-tier competitor. This context matters: the Core 9 273PTE is not a weak processor by absolute standards, but it is clearly a tier below the Ultra 7 265T in the recorded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T averages 47697, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE averages 31143. The Ultra 7 265T sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 7 265T scores 31558 versus 20445 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 35.2% advantage. The same 35.2% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore tests.

Q: Which processor is better for single-threaded workloads?

A: The Ultra 7 265T leads in all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4455 versus 2886 (35.2% lead), and PassMark single-thread shows 4338 versus 3433 (20.9% lead).

Q: What is the biggest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 265T scores 322 against 142, a 55.9% lead. Floating point math (53.3%) and data encryption (52%) are close behind.

Q: How does the Core 9 273PTE compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 9 273PTE is within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700F (31081) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS (31074), and within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-13700TE (31028).

Q: Does the Ultra 7 265T compete with higher-tier AMD processors?

A: Yes. The Ultra 7 265T's average score of 47697 is within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D (47908) and within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (47527).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core and thread configurations. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 7 265T has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, resulting in fewer total threads.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Core 9 273PTE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Ultra 7 265T has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 9 273PTE boosts higher, but the Ultra 7 265T starts from a higher base.

Thermal design power is another differentiator. The Core 9 273PTE is rated at 45 watts, while the Ultra 7 265T is rated at 35 watts. Despite the lower TDP, the Ultra 7 265T delivers significantly higher performance in every recorded benchmark.

Socket compatibility is not shared. The Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 265T uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265T supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 7 265T at 102.4 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9 273PTE.

ECC memory support is another distinction. The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory; the Ultra 7 265T does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 265T provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Ultra 7 265T's integrated solution is from a newer graphics architecture.

Architecture Differences

The process node is a major architectural split. The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses a 10 nm process manufactured by Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T uses a 3 nm process manufactured by TSMC. This process advantage likely contributes to the Ultra 7 265T's higher performance at lower power consumption.

The codenames confirm different design generations. The Core 9 273PTE is based on Bartlett Lake, while the Ultra 7 265T is based on Arrow Lake-S. The Ultra 7 265T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, whereas the Core 9 273PTE is listed as a Core 9 (Bartlett Lake) part.

Transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Ultra 7 265T. It packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 9 273PTE has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Core 9 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Although the Ultra 7 265T has less L3 cache overall, it has more L1 and L2 per core.

The production status of both processors is listed as Active. The release dates differ: the Core 9 273PTE was released in March 2026, while the Ultra 7 265T was released in January 2025. The Ultra 7 265T is the earlier product.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T outperforms the Intel Core 9 273PTE in every single test in the database. The wins are 17 to 0, with margins ranging from 19.8% in PassMark physics to 55.9% in PassMark find prime numbers. The average benchmark scores place the Ultra 7 265T at 47697 (90th percentile) versus 31143 (82nd percentile) for the Core 9 273PTE.

The Ultra 7 265T achieves this with a lower TDP (35 watts versus 45 watts), a smaller process node (3 nm versus 10 nm), and a newer architecture (Arrow Lake-S versus Bartlett Lake). It also uses a different socket (1851 versus 1700), so platform choice is a deciding factor for any build.

The Core 9 273PTE does retain some advantages in specific areas. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 7 265T does not. It also supports DDR4, which may be relevant for users with existing memory. But these are compatibility features, not performance advantages. The benchmark data shows no test where the Core 9 273PTE wins.

For workloads that stress floating point math, encryption, or prime number calculations, the Ultra 7 265T delivers more than double the throughput in some cases. For general multicore and single-threaded tasks, it leads by roughly one-third. Even in the Ultra 7 265T's weakest relative category, integer math, it still leads by 21.5%.

The nearest rival analysis reinforces the gap. The Core 9 273PTE sits alongside the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, both within 0.2% of its average score. The Ultra 7 265T competes with the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D, which is a substantially faster class of competitor. Users choosing between these two specific processors should expect the Ultra 7 265T to deliver markedly better performance in every measured workload, with the only caveats being platform compatibility and the lack of ECC memory support.