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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in raw performance, but the story is more nuanced than a simple score comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE takes a single, notable victory.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Core 9 273PTE scores 2886 against the Core Ultra 9 285H's 2129.5, a 35.5% advantage. This is the largest single-core margin in the entire comparison and shows that the desktop part's boost clock of 5.50 GHz translates into real single-threaded performance. The Core Ultra 9 285H, despite a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, falls well behind in this specific test.

Every other benchmark favors the Core Ultra 9 285H. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 9 285H scores 3177.5 versus 2060 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 35.2% difference. The R20 multicore results show the same pattern: 12201 versus 8586, a 29.6% gap. The R23 multicore test is much closer, with the Ultra 9 285H scoring 20781.5 against 20445 for the Core 9 273PTE, a slim 1.6% margin. This near-tie in R23 multicore suggests that the two processors are much closer in sustained all-core workloads than the earlier Cinebench versions indicate.

PassMark results reinforce the Ultra 9 285H's dominance. The floating point math test shows 109190 versus 60673, a 44.4% lead. Data encryption is even more lopsided: 26140 versus 14253, a 45.5% gap. Extended instructions show a 40.5% difference, 26794 versus 15952. The prime number search test is the largest single delta, with the Ultra 9 285H scoring 330 against 142, a 57% advantage. Data compression favors the Ultra 9 285H at 335859 versus 258704, a 23% lead. Random string sorting shows 40931 versus 28973, a 29.2% gap. The physics test gives the Ultra 9 285H a 2513 to 1917 win, a 23.7% margin.

The single-thread PassMark tests are closer but still favor the Ultra 9 285H. PassMark single thread shows 4415 versus 3433, a 22.2% difference. Integer math is the closest PassMark result, with the Ultra 9 285H at 85922 versus 82411, only 4.1% ahead. The multithread PassMark test shows 34171 versus 24054, a 29.6% gap.

The average benchmark scores in the database confirm the overall positioning. The Core Ultra 9 285H carries an average benchmark score of 38312, while the Core 9 273PTE sits at 31143. The percentile rankings place the Ultra 9 285H in the 86th percentile against all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design directions. The Core 9 273PTE is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake codename, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 9 285H is a mobile processor from the Arrow Lake-H family, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the Ultra 9 285H uses a far more advanced node, which helps explain its superior power efficiency and higher performance in most workloads.

Core counts also differ substantially. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating hyperthreading support. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use hyperthreading. Despite having fewer threads, the Ultra 9 285H still wins the majority of multicore benchmarks, a result of its architectural efficiency and higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 1.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PTE.

Cache hierarchies are built differently. The Core 9 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Ultra 9 285H likely contribute to its strong performance in latency-sensitive workloads, while the larger L3 pool on the Core 9 273PTE gives it an advantage in data-heavy scenarios that fit within 36 MB.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 9 285H offers Gen 5 with only 8 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics are not comparable. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, a basic desktop solution. The Core Ultra 9 285H ships with Arc Graphics 140T, a far more capable integrated GPU for a mobile part. The sockets are entirely different as well: the Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Intel BGA 2049, a soldered mobile package. The release dates also differ, with the Ultra 9 285H appearing in January 2025 and the Core 9 273PTE following in March 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285H wins across nearly every measured category. It leads in all Cinebench multicore tests, all PassMark compute workloads, compression, encryption, sorting, physics, and single-thread PassMark results. The data shows this processor as the stronger all-round performer, with particularly large advantages in floating point math, encryption, extended instruction throughput, and prime number calculation. Its 16 physical cores, higher base clock, faster memory bandwidth, and advanced 3 nm process combine to produce a consistently higher output across the board.

The Core 9 273PTE wins exactly one benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core. Its 2886 score versus 2129.5 gives it a 35.5% lead, which is a substantial margin. This single result indicates that the Core 9 273PTE has excellent single-threaded performance in at least one modern rendering workload. The boost clock of 5.50 GHz is the highest of the two processors, and the 36 MB L3 cache may play a role in keeping frequently accessed data close to the cores.

The nearest rival data in the database provides additional context. The Core 9 273PTE's average score of 31143 puts it within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-12700F and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS, and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13700TE. The Core Ultra 9 285H's average of 38312 places it 0.1% behind the Intel Core 9 270H, 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600HX, and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 250. These close margins show that both processors sit at the top of their respective performance tiers.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Core Ultra 9 285H is the choice for anyone needing maximum throughput in multithreaded or compute-heavy tasks, including encryption, data compression, and floating point work. Its 16 cores and higher memory bandwidth give it a wide performance envelope. The Core 9 273PTE is competitive only where single-threaded performance in Cinebench R23 is the primary concern, and even there its advantage is specific to that workload rather than a general property across all single-thread tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has an average benchmark score of 38312, compared to 31143 for the Intel Core 9 273PTE. The Ultra 9 285H also ranks in the 86th percentile versus the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The closest result is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core Ultra 9 285H scores 20781.5 against 20445 for the Core 9 273PTE, a difference of only 1.6%. The PassMark integer math test is also close, with the Ultra 9 285H ahead by 4.1%.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use hyperthreading. The Ultra 9 285H still wins most multicore benchmarks despite having fewer threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core 9 273PTE also wins the only benchmark where it leads, Cinebench R23 single-core, by 35.5%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 9 273PTE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s with support for DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285H has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC memory.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The Arc Graphics 140T is a more capable integrated GPU, which is relevant because the Ultra 9 285H is a mobile processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every hardware specification. The Core 9 273PTE uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 1.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.50 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. Both are rated at 45 W TDP.

Cache layouts differ across all levels. The Core 9 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3.

Process technology is a major split: the Core 9 273PTE uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses TSMC's 3 nm process. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 2049 for the mobile part.

Memory support shows DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 9 273PTE, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra 9 285H. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ too: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes for the Core 9 273PTE, Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes for the Core Ultra 9 285H.

Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 9 273PTE and Arc Graphics 140T for the Core Ultra 9 285H. The market segments differ, with the Core 9 273PTE targeting desktop and the Core Ultra 9 285H targeting mobile. The Core 9 273PTE launched in March 2026 with a launch MSRP of $549, while the Core Ultra 9 285H launched in January 2025 with a launch MSRP of $651. Both processors are active, have locked multipliers, and support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H in 16 of 17 tests. Its wins include large margins in floating point math, encryption, compression, extended instructions, and multithreaded PassMark and Cinebench results. The database shows this processor as the stronger choice for nearly all compute-heavy workloads, with an average benchmark score of 38312 and an 86th percentile ranking. Its 16 cores, 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth deliver consistently higher scores than the Core 9 273PTE.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE has one clear strength: Cinebench R23 single-core performance, where it leads by 35.5%. It also carries a higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a larger 36 MB L3 cache. For workloads that rely specifically on single-threaded rendering in Cinebench R23, the Core 9 273PTE is the better part. Its average benchmark score of 31143 and 82nd percentile ranking place it slightly lower overall, but its nearest rivals are all within 0.5%, indicating that it sits in a competitive desktop performance tier.

The choice depends on the workload. The Core Ultra 9 285H is the default pick for general performance, multithreaded tasks, and compute-heavy applications. The Core 9 273PTE is the pick when single-threaded Cinebench R23 performance is the deciding factor. There is no scenario in the data where the Core 9 273PTE wins outside that single test.