Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE does not claim a single victory. The margins are substantial across every category, with the smallest gap appearing in single-threaded workloads.

In Cinebench testing, the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus delivers roughly double the performance of the Core 9 273PTE. The R15 multicore result shows the Ultra 7 scoring 4224 against 2060 for the Core 9, a delta of 51.2%. The R20 multicore test repeats the pattern: 17603 versus 8586, again a 51.2% deficit for the Core 9. The R23 multicore benchmark confirms the trend with the Ultra 7 reaching 41913 while the Core 9 manages 20445, another 51.2% gap. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same shape, with the Ultra 7 ahead by 51.3% in R15 (596 versus 290) and 51.2% in both R20 (2485 versus 1212) and R23 (5917 versus 2886).

PassMark results show a similar hierarchy, though the margins vary by workload. The most extreme difference appears in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 scores 482 against a mere 142 for the Core 9, a 70.5% gap. Floating point math also heavily favors the Ultra 7, with a score of 163567 versus 60673, a 62.9% difference. Data encryption shows a 62.3% deficit for the Core 9 (37813 versus 14253), and extended instructions follow at 59.4% (39283 versus 15952). Random string sorting favors the Ultra 7 by 51.7% (60020 versus 28973), while the multithread test shows a 50.2% gap (48270 versus 24054). The physics test delivers a 50.1% difference (3843 versus 1917). Data compression is closer in relative terms at 47.5% (493179 versus 258704), and integer math narrows further to 32.7% (122449 versus 82411).

The smallest margin of all appears in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 7 scores 4764 against 3433 for the Core 9, a 27.9% advantage. This indicates that even in the category where the Core 9 comes closest, it still trails by a significant margin. Across the full benchmark suite, the average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 is 61834, while the Core 9 averages 31143. The Ultra 7 sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the Core 9 ranks at the 82nd percentile.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Ultra 7 matches the Intel Core i9-13900KF with a 0% delta, sits 0.1% above the Core i9-13900K, and 0.2% above the Core i9-13900T. The Core 9, by comparison, shows a 0.2% delta over both the Core i7-12700F and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, and a 0.4% delta over the Core i7-13700TE. The Core 9 trails the Core i7-12650HX by 0.5%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying design. The Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename, and is manufactured by TSMC on a 3 nm node. The process node difference alone, 10 nm versus 3 nm, explains much of the efficiency and performance gap observed in the benchmarks.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Ultra 7 has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, whereas the Core 9 relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 7 still dominates every multithreaded benchmark, which points to the architectural efficiency of the Arrow Lake-HX design.

Cache hierarchies also differ in structure. The Core 9 provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 offers larger per-core caches at 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, but a smaller shared L3 pool at 30 MB. The Core 9's larger L3 cache does not compensate for the Ultra 7's other advantages in the recorded tests.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 7 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but reaches 102.4 GB/s. The higher bandwidth aligns with the Ultra 7's stronger performance in memory-sensitive workloads. ECC memory is supported on the Core 9 but not on the Ultra 7.

PCIe connectivity differs, with the Core 9 offering Gen 5 across 16 CPU lanes and the Ultra 7 providing Gen 5 across 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics diverge: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop part, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114 and is classified as mobile. The Core 9 has a locked multiplier; the Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 9 launched with an MSRP of $549. The Ultra 7 has a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors; the Core 9 has no recorded die size or transistor count.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 9 273PTE takes the lead. Every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math workloads, favors the Ultra 7. Still, the degree of the Ultra 7's advantage varies enough to identify where each processor is relatively stronger or weaker.

The Ultra 7's largest margins appear in integer-heavy and specialized workloads. The find prime numbers test shows a 70.5% gap, floating point math shows 62.9%, and data encryption shows 62.3%. These are compute-bound tasks where the Ultra 7's 3 nm process and newer architecture deliver outsized gains. Extended instructions also favor the Ultra 7 heavily at 59.4%.

The Ultra 7's smallest advantage comes in single-threaded performance, at 27.9% in the PassMark single-thread test. This suggests the Core 9's 5.50 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the Ultra 7's 5.30 GHz, helps narrow the gap in lightly threaded work. Even so, the Ultra 7's superior IPC from the Arrow Lake-HX design keeps it ahead.

The Core 9's relative strengths, such as they are, appear in the tests where the gap is smallest. Integer math at 32.7% and data compression at 47.5% are its least unfavorable results. The Core 9 also offers ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility, which are not performance metrics but may matter for specific deployment scenarios. The Core 9 additionally has a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB versus 30 MB, though this does not translate into benchmark wins.

For workloads that scale with memory bandwidth, such as data compression and random string sorting, the Ultra 7's 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s contributes to its advantage. The multithread test shows a 50.2% gap, and the physics test shows 50.1%, indicating that even in parallel workloads the Ultra 7's 20 physical cores outperform the Core 9's 12 cores with 24 threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores.

Q: Does the Core 9 273PTE beat the Ultra 7 in any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Ultra 7 winning all 17 tests, with the Core 9 winning zero.

Q: What is the smallest benchmark gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Ultra 7 leads by 27.9% (4764 versus 3433).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has a 5.50 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the Ultra 7's 5.30 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus does not.

Q: Which processor is built on a smaller process node?

A: The Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus is built on TSMC's 3 nm node, while the Core 9 273PTE uses Intel's 10 nm node.

The Verdict

The benchmark data directs a clear choice toward the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus. It wins every recorded test, holds a 93rd percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database, and averages a benchmark score of 61834, roughly double the Core 9's 31143 average. The Ultra 7's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-13900KF, scores 61841, a 0% delta, placing the Ultra 7 in flagship desktop territory despite being classified as a mobile part.

The Core 9 273PTE, at the 82nd percentile, competes with the Core i7-12700F and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of L3 cache are respectable, but the architecture gap is too wide. The Core 9's 10 nm process and older Bartlett Lake design cannot match the Ultra 7's 3 nm Arrow Lake-HX implementation.

For users running multithreaded workloads, the Ultra 7's 20 physical cores deliver 41913 in Cinebench R23 multicore, more than double the Core 9's 20445. For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 7's 5917 R23 single-core score again doubles the Core 9's 2886. The only areas where the Core 9 offers advantages are non-performance features: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and a lower stated TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts.

The data supports choosing the Ultra 7 for nearly any compute scenario. The Core 9 273PTE retains relevance only for specific use cases requiring ECC memory or DDR4 support, where its feature set, rather than its benchmark results, provides justification. The recorded measurements show no performance scenario where the Core 9 is the stronger processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

| Specification | Core 9 273PTE | Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus |

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

| Cores | 12 | 20 |

| Threads | 24 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2026-03-16 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SA4QJ | SADST |