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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE secures only a single victory. The average benchmark score difference is substantial, with the 285HX recording an average of 76155 against the 273PTE's 31143, placing the 285HX in the 95th percentile of all CPUs compared to the 273PTE's 82nd percentile.

The 285HX's most dominant performance comes in PassMark data encryption, where its score of 48567 is 70.7% ahead of the 273PTE's 14253. Similarly, in PassMark find prime numbers, the 285HX scores 460 versus 142, a 69.1% advantage. Floating point math shows a 68.9% gap (194998 against 60673), and extended instructions deliver a 67.5% lead (49148 versus 15952). These results indicate that the 285HX provides roughly triple the throughput in encryption and prime number workloads, and more than double in floating point operations.

Multi-threaded rendering workloads follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 285HX scores 5656.5 against 2060, a 63.6% margin. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 20236 versus 8586, a 57.6% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore narrows the gap somewhat but still favors the 285HX by 43.9% (36429.5 versus 20445). PassMark multithread confirms the trend with a 57.7% lead (56902 against 24054).

Memory-sensitive workloads also favor the 285HX. PassMark data compression shows a 59.1% advantage (631885 versus 258704), while random string sorting delivers a 62.5% gap (77196 against 28973). Integer math is 46.9% higher on the 285HX (155076 versus 82411), and physics simulations show a 44.9% lead (3476 against 1917).

Single-threaded performance tells a more nuanced story. The 285HX wins PassMark single thread by 25.7% (4618 versus 3433) and Cinebench R15 singlecore by 10.4% (323.5 against 290). However, the 273PTE wins Cinebench R23 singlecore decisively, scoring 2886 against 2187.5, a 31.9% margin. This is the only benchmark where the 273PTE comes out ahead, and it indicates that for certain single-threaded rendering tasks, the 273PTE's architecture delivers superior per-core efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. The 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process, while the 285HX uses Arrow Lake-HX on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The manufacturing node difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the smaller 3 nm process allows for denser, more efficient circuitry.

Core counts differ significantly. The 273PTE provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 285HX provides 24 cores and 24 threads. This means the 285HX has twice the physical cores but uses a design where each core handles a single thread, whereas the 273PTE relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 24 threads from 12 cores. The 285HX's base clock is 2.80 GHz versus 1.40 GHz on the 273PTE, though both boost to 5.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the 285HX has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache, so the total cache capacity is equal at the L3 level, but the 285HX provides substantially more low-latency per-core cache.

Memory support differs as well. The 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 285HX supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 285HX at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s on the 273PTE. Both use dual-channel memory buses and support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity favors the 285HX with 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) against 16 lanes on the 273PTE.

Integrated graphics are another differentiator. The 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, a more capable graphics solution. The 273PTE is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, whereas the 285HX is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2114. The 285HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the 273PTE does not, and the 285HX's TDP is 55 W versus 45 W for the 273PTE. The 273PTE was released in March 2026 with a launch MSRP of $549, while the 285HX was released in January 2025 with no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has an average benchmark score of 76155, compared to 31143 for the Intel Core 9 273PTE. The 285HX sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the 273PTE sits in the 82nd percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Core 9 273PTE win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 273PTE wins Cinebench R23 singlecore with a score of 2886 against 2187.5 for the 285HX, a 31.9% margin. This is the only benchmark where the 273PTE outperforms the 285HX.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The 273PTE achieves its thread count through simultaneous multithreading, whereas the 285HX has a one-to-one core-to-thread ratio.

Q: What is the difference in manufacturing process?

A: The 273PTE is manufactured on a 10 nm Intel process, while the 285HX is manufactured on a 3 nm TSMC process. The 285HX also uses 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The 285HX supports 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the 273PTE supports 16 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Both are Gen 5, but the 285HX provides four additional lanes.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PTE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX |

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Architecture / Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-HX |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 36 MB | 36 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

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

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

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SA4QJ | SRVFJ |

The Verdict

The data clearly establishes the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX as the superior processor in almost every measurable category. Its 24 physical cores, 3 nm manufacturing process, higher base clock, larger per-core caches, higher memory bandwidth, and additional PCIe lanes collectively produce an average benchmark score that is 144.6% higher than the 273PTE. The 285HX also ranks higher in the overall CPU percentile (95th versus 82nd) and competes closely with AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (0.1% behind) and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (0.5% ahead), while the 273PTE's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-12700F with only a 0.2% difference.

The 273PTE's single victory in Cinebench R23 singlecore is notable but insufficient to offset the 285HX's dominance elsewhere. The 273PTE's 31.9% lead in that specific test suggests that for a narrow range of single-threaded rendering tasks, its architecture provides better per-core efficiency. However, the 285HX wins the other two single-core tests (Cinebench R15 singlecore by 10.4% and PassMark single thread by 25.7%), so even in the single-threaded domain, the 285HX is generally ahead.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads, rendering, encryption, compression, or physics simulations, the 285HX is the clear choice based on the data. The 285HX also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, which the 273PTE lacks. The 273PTE's only advantages are its desktop socket form factor, its support for DDR4 memory, and its lower TDP of 45 W against 55 W. The 273PTE also has a recorded launch MSRP of $549, while the 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins in 16 of 17 benchmark categories, including all PassMark tests and the majority of Cinebench tests. Its largest margins are in data encryption (70.7%), find prime numbers (69.1%), floating point math (68.9%), and extended instructions (67.5%). The 285HX also dominates in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads, with margins ranging from 43.9% to 63.6% across R15, R20, and R23 versions. For data compression, random string sorting, integer math, physics, and multithread workloads, the 285HX leads by margins between 44.9% and 62.5%. The 285HX also wins both PassMark single-thread tests and Cinebench R15 singlecore.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins exactly one benchmark: Cinebench R23 singlecore, where it scores 2886 against 2187.5, a 31.9% margin. This result indicates that for a specific single-threaded rendering workload, the 273PTE's 10 nm architecture with 12 cores and 24 threads provides better per-core output than the 285HX's 3 nm architecture with 24 cores and 24 threads. However, this single win does not translate to broader single-threaded success, as the 285HX leads in the other two single-core benchmarks.

The 273PTE also holds advantages outside of benchmark scores: it is a desktop processor on Socket 1700, supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, has a lower 45 W TDP, and has a recorded launch MSRP of $549. The 285HX is a mobile processor on BGA 2114, supports only DDR5, has a 55 W TDP, and has no recorded launch MSRP. For users requiring DDR4 compatibility or a desktop socket, the 273PTE is the only option between these two. For all other use cases, the recorded benchmark data favors the 285HX.