Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in this comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core 9 273PTE does not secure a single win, which establishes a clear performance hierarchy from the outset.

The largest gap appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 326, while the Core 9 273PTE manages only 142. That is a 56.4% deficit for the desktop part, the widest margin in the entire comparison. This particular workload is heavily dependent on core count and architectural efficiency, and the mobile chip's advantage here is substantial.

Data encryption shows a similarly pronounced gap. The Core Ultra 7 366H delivers 25845 points, against 14253 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 44.9% difference. This is a workload that benefits from newer instruction sets and memory bandwidth, and the results reflect a major architectural advantage for the Panther Lake part.

Floating point math follows the same pattern. The mobile processor scores 103615, the desktop processor scores 60673, a 41.4% gap. Extended instructions also favor the Ultra 7 heavily, with 26901 versus 15952, a 40.7% difference. These two tests together indicate that the Core Ultra 7 366H handles computational workloads with far greater efficiency per clock and per core.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. In cinebench_r23_multicore, the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, while the Core 9 273PTE scores 20445, a 28.2% gap. The same 28.2% delta appears in cinebench_r20_multicore, with scores of 11960 and 8586 respectively, and in cinebench_r15_multicore, with 2870 versus 2060. Single-core results are also consistently in favor of the Ultra 7, with a 28.2% gap in cinebench_r23_singlecore (4020 versus 2886) and a 28.4% gap in cinebench_r15_singlecore (405 versus 290).

The passmark_multithread test shows the Ultra 7 at 33429 points versus 24054 for the Core 9, a 28% lead. Physics simulation results in a 33.4% gap, with 2880 against 1917. Random string sorting shows a 27.2% difference, with 39814 versus 28973. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 by 21%, scoring 327455 against 258704.

The narrowest margin in the entire comparison appears in passmark_integer_math. The Core Ultra 7 366H scores 83695, and the Core 9 273PTE scores 82411, a delta of only 1.5%. This is the only test where the desktop part comes close to matching the mobile chip, suggesting that integer-heavy workloads are less sensitive to the architectural differences between the two.

Single-thread performance in Passmark shows a 15.1% gap, with 4043 points for the Ultra 7 and 3433 for the Core 9. This is a smaller margin than the multi-threaded gaps, but it still represents a clear victory for the mobile processor.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity regarding use-case splits. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every recorded category, so the practical distinction comes down to which workloads show the most extreme advantages.

For encryption and security-related tasks, the Ultra 7 is in a different class. The 44.9% lead in data encryption is one of the largest margins recorded, making this processor the clear choice for workloads that involve cryptographic operations, secure communications, or data protection routines.

For scientific computing and numerical simulation, the floating point math score of 103615 against 60673 gives the Ultra 7 a commanding position. Any workload that relies heavily on FPU throughput, such as physics calculations, signal processing, or certain types of financial modeling, will perform substantially better on the mobile chip.

For software development and compilation, the Cinebench results are the relevant indicator. The 28.2% multi-core advantage in cinebench_r23 suggests that build times, code compilation, and parallel processing tasks will complete noticeably faster on the Core Ultra 7 366H.

For general office productivity and everyday multitasking, the integer math result is the closest contest. The 1.5% gap means that the Core 9 273PTE is nearly competitive in these lighter workloads, though it still trails. For users whose primary tasks are document editing, spreadsheets, and web browsing, the difference between these two processors would be minimal in practice.

For the Core 9 273PTE, there is no benchmark category where it leads. Its best relative performance is in integer math, where it trails by only 1.5%, and in single-thread Passmark, where it trails by 15.1%. The processor is not without merit, but the data does not support any use case where it outperforms the Core Ultra 7 366H.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process node. It is a desktop processor with 12 cores and 24 threads, which indicates Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node, and it has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no Hyper-Threading.

The process node difference is significant. The 3 nm node used for the Panther Lake chip is considerably more advanced than the 10 nm node used for Bartlett Lake. This explains how the Ultra 7 achieves higher performance despite having a much lower TDP of 25 watts, compared to 45 watts for the Core 9.

Cache configurations also differ substantially. 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 Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 has more L1 and L2 per core, which helps with single-thread and per-core performance, while the Core 9 has double the L3 cache, which helps with larger working sets.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The higher memory bandwidth on the Ultra 7 contributes to its strong performance in memory-intensive workloads like data compression and encryption.

The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 366H does not. This makes the desktop part suitable for error-correcting memory configurations, a feature that the mobile chip lacks.

PCIe connectivity differs in lane count. The Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Both support the same PCIe generation, but the desktop part offers more direct CPU lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The newer Xe3 architecture in the mobile chip is likely a factor in any graphics-related workloads, though the benchmark data does not include GPU-specific tests.

The socket and form factor are entirely different. The Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700 and is a desktop processor. The Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel BGA 2540 and is a mobile processor. This means they are not interchangeable in any system, and the choice between them is largely determined by the platform.

Clock speeds also differ. The Core 9 273PTE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 366H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The desktop part has a higher boost clock, but the mobile part has a higher base clock and a more efficient architecture.

The release dates differ, with the Core 9 273PTE releasing in March 2026 and the Core Ultra 7 366H releasing in January 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the Intel Core 9 273PTE in every single recorded test, with an overall average benchmark score of 41263 against 31143. This is a 32.5% difference in aggregate performance.

The Core Ultra 7 366H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 9 273PTE sits in the 82nd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm the gap: the Core Ultra 7 366H is closely matched with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, trailing by only 0.3%, while the Core 9 273PTE sits in a lower performance tier alongside the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS.

For users building a desktop system, the data indicates that the Core 9 273PTE is a capable processor, but it is not competitive with the Core Ultra 7 366H on any metric. The desktop part does offer ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which are not available on the mobile chip, but in raw computational performance, it loses across the board.

For users considering a mobile platform, the Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice based on this comparison. It delivers higher performance in every benchmark while consuming only 25 watts of TDP, compared to 45 watts for the desktop part. The efficiency advantage is remarkable, with the mobile chip achieving higher scores at nearly half the power envelope.

The only scenario where the Core 9 273PTE makes sense is one where ECC memory support is required and desktop form factor is mandatory. The data does not support any performance-based reason to choose it over the Core Ultra 7 366H.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every multi-core benchmark. In cinebench_r23_multicore, it scores 28477 versus 20445 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 28.2% advantage. In passmark_multithread, it scores 33429 versus 24054, a 28% lead.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H leads in all single-core tests. It scores 4020 in cinebench_r23_singlecore versus 2886, a 28.2% gap. In passmark_single_thread, it scores 4043 versus 3433, a 15.1% lead.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 9 has more threads due to Hyper-Threading support.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 9 273PTE has 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 7 also supports LPDDR5X memory in addition to DDR5, while the Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 9 273PTE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 366H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Core 9 273PTE has a TDP of 45 watts. The mobile chip delivers higher performance at nearly half the power draw.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PTE | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | 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 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | Not available |

| Part Number | SA4QJ | SA4R9Q9EL |