Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records an average benchmark score of 75488, which places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 9 273PTE scores 31143 on average, putting it in the 82nd percentile. The Ultra 9 285 is the clear leader, with the Core 9 273PTE trailing by a wide margin in every recorded test.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. Both support the same thread count, but the Ultra 9 285 delivers double the physical cores.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Ultra 9 285 runs at a higher base frequency and a slightly higher boost frequency.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 perform in single-core tests?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 9 285 scores 6909 versus 2886 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 58.2% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 versus 3433, a 29.7% lead.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both use PCIe Gen 5, but the Ultra 9 285 offers four additional CPU lanes.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, 17 out of 17 tests. There is not one recorded benchmark where the Intel Core 9 273PTE comes out ahead. The Ultra 9 285 delivers an average benchmark score of 75488, which is more than double the 31143 average of the Core 9 273PTE.

The Core 9 273PTE occupies the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285 sits in the 95th percentile. The Ultra 9 285 also sits alongside server-class competition: its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P at a delta of -0.1% and the AMD EPYC 4545P at +0.2%. The Core 9 273PTE, by contrast, competes with mainstream desktop and mobile parts such as the Intel Core i7-12700F at +0.2% and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS at +0.2%.

For anyone building a desktop system where multi-threaded throughput matters, the Ultra 9 285 is the only sensible pick from this pair. The Core 9 273PTE does have a lower 45 W TDP versus 65 W for the Ultra 9 285, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which may matter for platform flexibility. But the performance gap is so large that the Core 9 273PTE is only relevant for workloads where power draw or memory type compatibility is the deciding factor. The launch MSRP of the Core 9 273PTE is $549, while the Ultra 9 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 appears in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 46949 versus 14253 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 69.6% delta. PassMark find prime numbers shows a similar gap: 459 versus 142, a 69.1% delta. Floating point math follows with 194988 versus 60673, a 68.9% delta. These are the three biggest wins for the Ultra 9 285.

The smallest advantage is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 against 3433, a 29.7% delta. PassMark physics shows a 46.7% delta with scores of 3598 and 1917. PassMark integer math delivers a 50.0% delta with 164869 versus 82411.

Cinebench results are consistent across every version. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 285 scores 4933 versus 2060, a 58.2% delta. R15 single-core shows 696 versus 290, a 58.3% delta. R20 multicore is 20556 versus 8586, a 58.2% delta. R20 single-core is 2901 versus 1212, a 58.2% delta. R23 multicore is 48945 versus 20445, a 58.2% delta. R23 single-core is 6909 versus 2886, a 58.2% delta.

PassMark multithread shows 56602 versus 24054, a 57.5% delta. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 28973, a 60.7% delta. Data compression shows 602121 versus 258704, a 57.0% delta. Extended instructions show 45357 versus 15952, a 64.8% delta.

Across all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the Ultra 9 285 never posts a delta smaller than 29.7%. The Core 9 273PTE has zero wins. The data indicates a complete sweep in favor of the Ultra 9 285.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. The core count doubles, while thread count stays identical.

Base clocks differ. The Core 9 273PTE runs at 1.40 GHz, the Ultra 9 285 at 2.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 5.50 GHz versus 5.60 GHz.

Thermal design power differs by 20 W. The Core 9 273PTE is rated at 45 W, the Ultra 9 285 at 65 W.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support differs. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 9 285 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts differ. The Core 9 273PTE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes, the Ultra 9 285 provides 20 Gen 5 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Release dates differ. The Core 9 273PTE launched on 2026-03-08, the Ultra 9 285 on 2024-12-31. Production status is Active for both.

Part numbers differ: SA4QJ for the Core 9 273PTE, SRQD4 for the Ultra 9 285. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is built on Bartlett Lake, within the Core 9 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is built on Arrow Lake, within the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The codename for the Ultra 9 285 is Arrow Lake-S.

Process nodes differ substantially. The Core 9 273PTE uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 9 285 uses TSMC's 3 nm process. This explains, in part, the large performance and efficiency differences between the two.

The Ultra 9 285 carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Core 9 273PTE.

Cache hierarchies differ. The Core 9 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. L3 capacity is identical at 36 MB, but L1 and L2 per-core allocations are larger on the Ultra 9 285.

The foundry differs. The Core 9 273PTE is manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 9 285 is manufactured by TSMC. Neither processor uses 3D V-Cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It holds the advantage in all three Cinebench versions, both multicore and single-core. It wins every PassMark test category, including integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, random string sorting, multithread, and single-thread.

The biggest wins for the Ultra 9 285 are in encryption, prime number finding, and floating point math, where deltas exceed 68%. These results indicate strong performance in cryptographic workloads, mathematical computation, and floating-point-heavy applications. The smallest win is in single-thread performance at 29.7%, which still represents a substantial lead.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE has no benchmark wins. Its only advantages are structural. It has a lower 45 W TDP, which may benefit low-power or thermally constrained builds. It supports DDR4 memory, which matters for systems reusing existing DDR4 modules. It uses Intel Socket 1700, which may be available on older motherboards. It also has a lower launch MSRP of $549.

The recorded data shows that the Core 9 273PTE is best suited to scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint or where DDR4 compatibility is required. The Ultra 9 285 is the stronger choice for any workload that depends on raw compute throughput. The performance gap between the two is not marginal; it spans 29.7% to 69.6% depending on the test. The Ultra 9 285 also sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE, confirming its status as a top-tier part in the database.