Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Intel processors into clearly different roles. The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins only 2 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H takes 15. However, the Core 9 273PTE's victories land in two of the most demanding single-thread and sustained multi-core workloads, which tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The Core 9 273PTE wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (20445 vs 18747, a 9.1% advantage) and Cinebench R23 single-core (2886 vs 2080, a 38.8% advantage). These are long-duration rendering workloads that stress both sustained clock behavior and per-core efficiency. The single-core margin is particularly decisive, indicating that the Core 9 273PTE's 5.50 GHz boost clock delivers a substantial advantage in lightly threaded tasks that cannot be offset by the Ultra X7 358H's newer architecture.

The Core Ultra X7 358H dominates the remaining 15 tests, including every PassMark workload and the older Cinebench R15 and R20 versions. Its wins range from narrow to massive. The smallest margin is in PassMark integer math (83147 vs 82411, only 0.9% ahead), while the largest is in PassMark find prime numbers (337 vs 142, a 57.9% lead). The Ultra X7 also wins decisively in PassMark data encryption (26046 vs 14253, 45.3% ahead), extended instructions (27274 vs 15952, 41.5% ahead), and floating point math (103842 vs 60673, 41.6% ahead).

The use-case split is clear. The Core 9 273PTE suits workloads that favor very high single-core frequency and sustained multi-core rendering, such as certain CAD, simulation, or content creation tasks where Cinebench R23-style loads dominate. The Core Ultra X7 358H suits broader throughput workloads, especially encryption, compression, prime number searches, and general integer or floating point math, where its 16 cores and newer process node provide a consistent edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PTE is a desktop part based on the Bartlett Lake codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, targets the desktop market segment, and was released on 2026-03-08. The Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor codenamed Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, built on a 3 nm process node, also at Intel's foundry. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, targets the mobile market segment, and was released earlier on 2026-01-04.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, which indicates Hyper-Threading support, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer cores, the Core 9 273PTE doubles its thread count, which partially compensates in heavily threaded workloads. The Ultra X7 compensates with more physical cores and a much larger per-core cache allocation.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Core 9 273PTE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra X7 has larger private caches but half the shared L3, which affects how well it handles data sets that exceed per-core capacity but fit in a large shared pool.

Clock speeds also differ. The Core 9 273PTE runs at a 1.40 GHz base clock with a 5.50 GHz boost, while the Ultra X7 runs at a 1.90 GHz base with a 4.80 GHz boost. The higher boost on the Core 9 explains its single-core win, while the higher base on the Ultra X7 supports its sustained throughput advantage.

Memory and platform features diverge. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Ultra X7 supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Core 9 offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X7 offers PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra X7 uses Arc B390. Thermal design power also differs, with the Core 9 rated at 45 W and the Ultra X7 at 25 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results reveal an interesting inversion across versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 3027 against the Core 9's 2060, a 31.9% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Ultra X7 scores 12011 against 8586, a 28.5% lead. But in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 9 flips the result, scoring 20445 against 18747, a 9.1% win. This pattern suggests the R23 workload rewards the Core 9's higher sustained boost behavior or different instruction scheduling, while older R15 and R20 versions favor the Ultra X7's wider core count.

Single-core Cinebench results are even more stark. The Ultra X7 wins Cinebench R15 single-core narrowly, 301.5 vs 290, only 3.8% ahead. It wins Cinebench R20 single-core by a larger 28.5% margin, 1695 vs 1212. But in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 wins decisively, 2886 vs 2080, a 38.8% advantage. The R23 single-core delta is the largest single-core gap in the entire dataset and points to a significant architectural or clock advantage for the Core 9 in that specific workload.

PassMark results are uniformly in favor of the Ultra X7, with margins that vary by workload type. Data compression shows the Ultra X7 at 332508 vs 258704, a 22.2% lead. Data encryption shows 26046 vs 14253, a 45.3% lead. Extended instructions show 27274 vs 15952, a 41.5% lead. Find prime numbers shows 337 vs 142, a 57.9% lead, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Floating point math shows 103842 vs 60673, a 41.6% lead. Integer math is closest at 83147 vs 82411, only 0.9% apart, with the Ultra X7 barely ahead. Multithread score shows 33802 vs 24054, a 28.8% lead. Physics shows 3021 vs 1917, a 36.5% lead. Random string sorting shows 40357 vs 28973, a 28.2% lead. Single-thread PassMark shows 4124 vs 3433, a 16.8% lead.

The aggregate benchmark averages confirm the Ultra X7's overall superiority. The Core 9 273PTE has an average benchmark score of 31143 and sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967 and sits at the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 include the Intel Core i7-12700F at 31081 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HS at 31074 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i7-13700TE at 31028 (0.4% behind). The nearest rivals for the Ultra X7 include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.6% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G at 40718 (0.6% behind).

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct purchasing profiles. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is the choice for workloads that depend on maximum single-core frequency and sustained multi-core rendering in Cinebench R23-style applications. Its 38.8% single-core lead over the Ultra X7 in R23 is substantial, and its 9.1% multi-core lead in that same test shows it can hold its own in rendering tasks. Desktop users with Socket 1700 motherboards, DDR4 or DDR5 memory support, and ECC requirements will find the Core 9 a match for their platform needs.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the choice for broad throughput workloads, especially encryption, compression, prime number searches, floating point math, and general multithreaded PassMark tests. Its 15 out of 17 benchmark wins, including a 57.9% lead in prime number finding and a 45.3% lead in encryption, indicate a strong general-purpose compute engine. Mobile users benefit from its 25 W TDP, LPDDR5X memory support with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, and the integrated Arc B390 graphics, which is a more capable iGPU than the Core 9's UHD Graphics 730.

The average benchmark scores make the overall gap clear: the Ultra X7's 40967 average is roughly 31.5% higher than the Core 9's 31143. The percentile ranking also favors the Ultra X7, at the 87th percentile versus the 82nd percentile for the Core 9. However, the Core 9's launch MSRP is $549, and the Ultra X7 has no recorded launch MSRP, so direct price comparison is not possible from the database.

For users who prioritize single-thread performance and R23-style rendering, the Core 9 273PTE is the better fit. For users who need maximum throughput across encryption, compression, math, and general multithreaded tasks, especially in a mobile form factor, the Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger choice based on the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9 has more threads despite fewer cores due to Hyper-Threading support.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two processors?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 versus the Core 9 273PTE's 142, a 57.9% lead for the Ultra X7.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 2886 versus the Core Ultra X7 358H's 2080, a 38.8% advantage for the Core 9.

Q: What are the process nodes and sockets for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE uses a 10 nm process node and Intel Socket 1700, targeting the desktop market. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm process node and Intel BGA 2540, targeting the mobile market.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support, while the Core 9 273PTE has 89.6 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support. The Core 9 also supports ECC memory, which the Ultra X7 does not.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has an average benchmark score of 40967, placing it at the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 9 273PTE has an average benchmark score of 31143, placing it at the 82nd percentile. The Ultra X7's average score is approximately 31.5% higher.