Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, and it wins most of them by a wide margin. The only test where the Intel Core 9 273PE comes out ahead is PassMark integer math, with a 1% advantage (139410 versus 138078). That single narrow win does little to offset the pattern elsewhere.

In Cinebench testing, the Core Ultra 7 265F is consistently 25.5% faster in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The R23 multi-core result shows 41980 for the 265F versus 31288 for the 273PE. The R23 single-core result is 5926 versus 4417. The same 25.5% gap appears in R15 multi-core (4231 versus 3153), R15 single-core (597 versus 445), R20 multi-core (17631 versus 13140), and R20 single-core (2488 versus 1855). The R20 single-core delta is listed at 25.4%, a rounding difference from the others.

The PassMark suite shows even larger deltas in several specialized workloads. Data encryption is the widest gap: the 265F scores 39468 versus 22719, a 42.4% advantage. Floating point math shows a 37.9% lead (173855 versus 107884). Extended instructions are 37.2% ahead (39235 versus 24630). Prime number finding is 51.2% ahead (416 versus 203), the largest percentage difference in the entire dataset. Random string sorting is 27.8% ahead (62439 versus 45098). Data compression is 19.9% ahead (507018 versus 405885). Multithread is 25.5% ahead (49410 versus 36810). Single-thread is 23.2% ahead (4750 versus 3650). Even the physics test, the closest PassMark result, goes to the 265F by 1.6% (3172 versus 3120).

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture. The Core Ultra 7 265F has an average score of 64438, while the Core 9 273PE averages 49845. The 265F sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the 273PE sits at the 90th. The nearest rivals for the 265F in the database are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3% ahead), AMD EPYC 7343 (0.4% behind), AMD EPYC 4464P (0.6% behind), and Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.6% behind). The 273PE's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (0.1% ahead), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.9% ahead), Intel Core i9-13980HX (1.1% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 (1.2% behind). The data shows the 265F competes in a higher performance tier entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41980, compared to 31288 for the Intel Core 9 273PE, a 25.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 9 273PE win any benchmark tests at all?

A: Yes, one test: PassMark integer math, where it scores 139410 versus 138078 for the 265F, a 1% advantage.

Q: How do the two processors compare on single-thread performance?

A: The 265F leads in every single-thread test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 5926 versus 4417, and in PassMark single-thread it scores 4750 versus 3650.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any test?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the 265F leads by 51.2%, scoring 416 versus 203.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438, while the 273PE averages 49845. The 265F also ranks higher overall at the 93rd percentile versus the 90th.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed with an "Active" production status and both are desktop market segment parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Core 9 273PE is based on Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 265F is an Arrow Lake-S part using the newer Core Ultra Series 2 naming, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The 265F has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the 273PE has no transistor or die size data recorded in the database.

The core configurations differ substantially. The 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning it uses simultaneous multithreading. The 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, with no multithreading, relying on a higher physical core count instead. The cache hierarchy also differs. The 273PE has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The 265F has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory support diverges as well. The 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 265F supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by the 273PE but not by the 265F. The PCIe implementations differ: the 273PE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on the 273PE (UHD Graphics 730) but absent on the 265F, which lists N/A. The sockets are different: the 273PE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. The release dates differ as well, with the 265F released earlier (2025-01-06) and the 273PE later (2026-03-08).

Specification Differences

The socket differs: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 9 273PE, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Core and thread counts differ: 12 cores and 24 threads for the 273PE, 20 cores and 20 threads for the 265F. Base clocks are close but not identical: 2.30 GHz for the 273PE, 2.40 GHz for the 265F. Boost clocks differ more: 5.70 GHz for the 273PE versus 5.30 GHz for the 265F. Both have a TDP of 65 W.

The process node differs: 10 nm for the 273PE, 3 nm for the 265F. The foundry differs: Intel for the 273PE, TSMC for the 265F. The 265F has recorded transistor and die size figures, while the 273PE does not. Cache differs at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core, L3 is 36 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the 273PE, DDR5 only for the 265F. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the 273PE and 102.4 GB/s for the 265F. ECC support is present on the 273PE and absent on the 265F. PCIe lanes differ: 16 CPU lanes for the 273PE, 20 for the 265F. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the 273PE and N/A for the 265F. Release dates differ, and the launch MSRP for the 273PE is $549, while the launch MSRP for the 265F is $379. Both have locked multipliers and active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear winner in rendering, encryption, compression, and almost every compute workload recorded. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41980 shows a 25.5% lead over the 273PE in CPU rendering. The 42.4% lead in PassMark data encryption and the 37.2% lead in extended instructions indicate strong performance in cryptographic and vectorized workloads. The 51.2% lead in prime number finding suggests a major advantage in integer-heavy algorithmic tasks. The 19.9% lead in data compression and 27.8% lead in random string sorting point to faster file and database operations. The 37.9% lead in floating point math covers scientific and simulation workloads. The 25.5% lead in multithread and 23.2% lead in single-thread benchmarks show it is faster across both parallel and latency-sensitive tasks.

The Intel Core 9 273PE has a single recorded win: PassMark integer math, with a 1% margin. That is a narrow edge in one specific workload, and it does not extend to any other test in the database. The 273PE also offers features the 265F lacks: DDR4 memory support, ECC memory, and integrated graphics. For builds that require ECC or a fallback display output without a discrete GPU, those features matter regardless of benchmark scores.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F decisively. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, often by large margins, and holds a higher average benchmark score (64438 versus 49845) and a higher overall percentile (93rd versus 90th). Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, AMD EPYC 7343, AMD EPYC 4464P, and Intel Core i9-13900KS, placing it in a performance class above the 273PE's nearest rivals, which include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, Intel Core i5-14600KF, Intel Core i9-13980HX, and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370.

The Core 9 273PE is the choice only for users who specifically need its unique features: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, or integrated graphics. Its single benchmark win in integer math is too narrow to recommend it on performance grounds. The 265F delivers superior results in every Cinebench test, every PassMark test except integer math, and the overall average. The data shows that the 265F is the stronger processor for rendering, encryption, compression, scientific math, and general compute throughput, while the 273PE retains a niche role for ECC-capable or graphics-integrated desktop builds.