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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins every recorded test against the Intel Core 9 273PTE. Across 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 9 285T takes all 17, with the Core 9 273PTE recording zero wins. The margins are substantial in nearly every category, not just in multi-threaded workloads where the 285T’s larger core count would predict an advantage.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285T scores 33,573 versus 20,445 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 39.1% deficit for the latter. The single-core gap is similar in percentage terms: 4,739 versus 2,886, again a 39.1% difference. The pattern holds across Cinebench R15 and R20, where the delta is consistently 39.1% to 39.2% in both single-core and multi-core tests. This indicates that the performance advantage is not merely a function of core count but also reflects a substantial per-thread efficiency gain.

PassMark tests reveal the widest margins in specific workloads. The 285T leads by 58.8% in find prime numbers (345 versus 142), by 56% in floating point math (137,923 versus 60,673), and by 55.5% in data encryption (32,061 versus 14,253). Extended instructions show a 41.9% gap (27,477 versus 15,952), while integer math trails by 37.8% (132,433 versus 82,411). The smallest single-test margin in the entire set is PassMark single-thread, where the 285T leads by 25% (4,576 versus 3,433). Even in this closest comparison, the Core Ultra 9 285T maintains a commanding lead.

Data compression shows a 32.7% gap (384,140 versus 258,704), and multithread performance shows 39.8% (39,931 versus 24,054). Physics tests record a 32.5% difference (2,842 versus 1,917), and random string sorting is 39.3% apart (47,695 versus 28,973). The consistency of these margins, ranging from roughly a quarter to nearly three-fifths, suggests a fundamental architectural superiority rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their underlying design. The Intel Core 9 273PTE uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T, by contrast, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake architecture and Arrow Lake-S codename. It uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with 24 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 1.40 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

The core and thread counts tell a critical story. The 273PTE offers 12 cores with Hyper-Threading, yielding 24 threads. The 285T offers 24 physical cores with no hyper-threading, also yielding 24 threads. In heavily threaded workloads, the 285T’s additional physical cores provide a direct advantage, but the near-uniform single-core margin indicates the 3 nm node and Arrow Lake design deliver superior instructions-per-clock as well.

Cache configurations differ meaningfully. The 273PTE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The 285T offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and the same 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the 285T contribute to its single-thread efficiency, particularly in latency-sensitive workloads like the PassMark single-thread test.

Memory support also diverges. The 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the 285T supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the 285T achieves 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 89.6 GB/s for the 273PTE. The 285T also provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, compared to 16 lanes on the 273PTE. Both support ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 285T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 285T’s integrated solution is a more modern architecture, though the database records no specific graphics benchmarks for either part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. There is no workload in the dataset where the Core 9 273PTE comes out ahead. The closest contest is PassMark single-thread, where the 285T leads by 25%. The widest margins appear in prime number finding (58.8%), floating-point math (56%), and encryption (55.5%). These are compute-heavy workloads that benefit from the 285T’s larger cache, newer process node, and higher per-core efficiency.

For productivity tasks, the 285T’s advantage is substantial but slightly narrower. Data compression shows a 32.7% lead, physics tests 32.5%, and integer math 37.8%. Multithread work shows a 39.8% gap, which aligns with the Cinebench multi-core results. The 285T’s 24 physical cores provide a robust foundation for rendering, compilation, and other parallel workloads.

The Core 9 273PTE does not win any category, but its profile is not without merit. Its 12 cores with 24 threads still deliver a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,445, which places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its single-thread score of 2,886 in Cinebench R23 is functional for everyday desktop use. The gap to the 285T is large, but the 273PTE remains competitive against its own nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core i7-12700F (0.2% ahead) and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS (0.2% ahead).

The 285T, by comparison, sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 51,310 versus 31,143 for the 273PTE. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900T (0.6% behind) and AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT (1.2% ahead), indicating it competes at a much higher performance tier.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the stronger processor in every measured category. It leads by 39.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and by 39.1% in single-core, with the widest gap reaching 58.8% in prime number finding. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE confirms that these are not marginal differences but a full performance tier apart.

The Core 9 273PTE uses an older 10 nm Intel process, supports DDR4 as well as DDR5, and offers 12 cores with hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 9 285T uses a 3 nm TSMC process, supports only DDR5, and provides 24 physical cores with no hyper-threading. The 285T also delivers higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) and more PCIe Gen 5 lanes (20 versus 16).

For users selecting between these two, the data points squarely to the Core Ultra 9 285T for any workload that benefits from higher multi-threaded throughput, stronger single-thread performance, or better memory bandwidth. The 273PTE’s only advantages are its support for older DDR4 memory and its lower listed TDP of 45 watts versus 35 watts for the 285T, though the latter actually draws less power. Both parts carry the same launch MSRP of $549, and both are locked. The 285T is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285T scores 33,573 versus 20,445 for the 273PTE, a 39.1% difference. In single-core, the 285T scores 4,739 versus 2,886, also a 39.1% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 285T supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE ranks in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 9 285T ranks in the 91st percentile.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | (not specified) | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | (not specified) | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | (not specified) | 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) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

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

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

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

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2025-01-06 |

| Part Number | SA4QJ | SRQD3 |