Intel Core 9 273PTE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R20 score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 13,101 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE scores 8,586. This gives the Ultra X9 a 34.5% advantage in that test.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 9 273PTE beat the Ultra X9 388H?

A: The Core 9 273PTE wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (20,445 vs 18,911, an 8.1% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (2,886 vs 2,200.5, a 31.2% lead). These are the only two head-to-head tests it wins out of 17 recorded.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44,466, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 9 273PTE averages 31,143, placing it in the 82nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PTE's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-12700F with an average score of 31,081 (0.2% difference). The Ultra X9 388H's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D with an average score of 44,573 (0.2% difference).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Intel Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies from Intel. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is built on Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry. It is a desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads, indicating support for simultaneous multithreading. The processor uses the Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Panther Lake architecture using a 3 nm process node, also from Intel's foundry. This mobile processor uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket and is designed for the mobile market segment. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 9 273PTE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The Ultra X9 388H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 18 MB L3 cache. The Ultra X9 has more per-core cache but half the total L3 capacity.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 9 273PTE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory support. The Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration but delivers 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, without ECC support.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The desktop Core 9 273PTE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU alone. The mobile Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra X9 uses Arc B390.

The Core 9 273PTE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, with a TDP of 45 watts. The Ultra X9 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, with a lower TDP of 25 watts. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records 17 benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H winning 15 and the Intel Core 9 273PTE winning 2. The margin of victory varies widely across workload types.

The strongest Ultra X9 result appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 358 against the Core 9's 142, a 60.3% advantage. Data encryption shows a 50% lead (28,490 vs 14,253). Extended instructions deliver a 46.7% gap (29,943 vs 15,952), and floating point math shows a 46.1% difference (112,550 vs 60,673). These results indicate the Ultra X9's computational throughput is substantially higher in math-heavy and encryption workloads.

In Cinebench R20, the Ultra X9 leads by 34.5% in both multi-core (13,101 vs 8,586) and single-core (1,849 vs 1,212) tests. Cinebench R15 shows a 30.3% multi-core lead (2,955 vs 2,060) and a smaller 6.3% single-core lead (309.5 vs 290). PassMark multithread results show a 34.7% gap (36,811 vs 24,054), and physics testing shows a 40.6% gap (3,226 vs 1,917).

The Core 9 273PTE's wins are notable for their size. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,886 versus 2,200.5, a 31.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20,445 versus 18,911, an 8.1% lead. These results suggest the Core 9's higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz (versus 5.10 GHz) and its 24 threads provide an advantage in certain rendering workloads, particularly those measured by Cinebench R23.

PassMark integer math shows the closest result, with the Ultra X9 leading by 9.3% (90,882 vs 82,411). PassMark single-thread results show a 19.8% lead for the Ultra X9 (4,280 vs 3,433), and data compression shows a 28.5% lead (361,763 vs 258,704). Random string sorting shows a 34.2% gap (44,010 vs 28,973).

The overall benchmark average confirms the Ultra X9's dominance. Its average score of 44,466 is 42.9% higher than the Core 9's 31,143. The percentile rankings place the Ultra X9 at 88th versus 82nd for the Core 9, meaning the mobile chip sits higher in the global distribution of all tested CPUs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.40 GHz for the Core 9 and 2.10 GHz for the Ultra X9. Boost clocks also differ: 5.50 GHz for the Core 9 and 5.10 GHz for the Ultra X9.

Thermal design power separates them clearly. The Core 9 273PTE carries a 45 watt TDP, while the Ultra X9 388H carries a 25 watt TDP. This reflects their different market segments: desktop versus mobile.

Socket and form factor differ. The Core 9 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra X9 uses Intel BGA 2540. The Core 9 is a desktop part; the Ultra X9 is a mobile part.

Process node and architecture differ. The Core 9 uses Bartlett Lake on a 10 nm process. The Ultra X9 uses Panther Lake on a 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel.

Cache specifications differ on a per-core basis. The Core 9 has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra X9 has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs in type and bandwidth. The Core 9 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Ultra X9 supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

PCIe lanes differ significantly. The Core 9 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The Ultra X9 provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU only.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Ultra X9 uses Arc B390.

Release dates differ. The Core 9 released on 2026-03-08. The Ultra X9 released on 2026-01-04. The Core 9 has a launch MSRP of $549. The Ultra X9 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Production status is active for both processors. Both have locked multipliers. The Core 9 part number is SA4QJ; the Ultra X9 part number is SA4QWQ9EK.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests and holds a 42.9% higher average benchmark score. Its wins span Cinebench R15 and R20, PassMark compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The magnitude of many wins is large, with several gaps exceeding 40%.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins only two tests, but both are meaningful. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,886 beats the Ultra X9 by 31.2%, and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20,445 beats the Ultra X9 by 8.1%. These results indicate that in Cinebench R23 workloads, the desktop chip's combination of 24 threads and 5.50 GHz boost clock delivers real advantages.

The data suggests the Ultra X9 388H is the stronger processor for most workloads. Its 16 cores on a 3 nm process, higher base clock, and significantly higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) contribute to broad superiority across PassMark tests and earlier Cinebench versions. Its 88th percentile ranking versus 82nd for the Core 9 confirms its higher standing among all CPUs.

The Core 9 273PTE remains relevant for specific use cases. Its wins in Cinebench R23 indicate that certain rendering workloads may favor its architecture. The 36 MB shared L3 cache, ECC memory support, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU distinguish it as a desktop-oriented part with different expansion capabilities.

For users running a mix of general productivity, encryption, compression, and floating point workloads, the recorded data favors the Ultra X9 388H. For users whose workloads resemble Cinebench R23, the Core 9 273PTE shows a measurable advantage. The choice depends on workload profile rather than overall capability, but the aggregate data clearly favors the mobile Ultra X9 388H.