Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 9 273PQE does not secure a single win, while the Core Ultra 9 285 wins every test. The margin varies heavily by workload, from a near tie in integer math to a dominant lead in prime number finding.

The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 against 198 for the Core 9 273PQE, a delta of 56.9 percent. This is the single biggest relative advantage in the comparison. Floating point math also shows a substantial gap: 194988 versus 125546, a 35.6 percent difference. Data encryption follows at 46949 versus 29636, a 36.9 percent delta. These three tests reveal the Core Ultra 9 285's strength in compute-heavy, parallel workloads.

Cinebench results are consistent across all six runs. The Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 19.9 or 20 percent in every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multi-core. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 while the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190. Single-core R23 shows 6909 versus 5532. The delta holds steady near 20 percent, suggesting a uniform architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark multi-thread results show the Core Ultra 9 285 at 56602 versus 46107, an 18.5 percent lead. Physics testing delivers 3598 against 2754, a 23.5 percent delta. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 53167, a 27.8 percent gap. Extended instructions score 45357 versus 38743, a 14.6 percent difference.

The closest contest is PassMark integer math. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 164869 and the Core 9 273PQE scores 164629, a delta of only 0.1 percent. This effectively a tie. Single-thread performance is also comparatively close: 4881 versus 4573, a 6.3 percent gap. Data compression shows 602121 versus 585752, a 2.7 percent delta. These narrower margins indicate that in some lightly threaded or integer-bound tasks, the two processors are far closer than the Cinebench and floating point results suggest.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their underlying design. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process node and fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node and fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 9 285 lists 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 9 273PQE has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 9 285 doubles the physical core count but maintains the same thread count, meaning it does not rely on simultaneous multithreading to reach 24 threads. The Core 9 273PQE requires 2 threads per core to reach its thread count.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache. Clock speeds favor the Core 9 273PQE on boost: 5.90 GHz versus 5.60 GHz for the Core Ultra 9 285. Base clocks are reversed, with the Core 9 273PQE at 3.40 GHz and the Core Ultra 9 285 at 2.50 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 watts versus 65 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285.

Socket and platform support differ. The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. Memory support: the Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 9 285 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lane counts differ: the Core 9 273PQE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 9 285 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 9 273PQE has no series designation. Release dates differ: the Core Ultra 9 285 appeared in the database on 2024-12-31, while the Core 9 273PQE is dated 2026-03-08.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded comparison, so any workload split must come from the magnitude of the advantage rather than the direction. The largest wins are in prime number finding, floating point math, and data encryption, where the Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 56.9, 35.6, and 36.9 percent respectively. These tasks benefit heavily from the Core Ultra 9 285's 24 physical cores and 3 nm process node.

The Core Ultra 9 285 also shows strong wins in random string sorting at 27.8 percent and physics at 23.5 percent. Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests both show consistent 19.9 to 20 percent leads. This consistency across rendering benchmarks suggests the Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a broad architectural advantage in both parallel and single-threaded execution.

The Core 9 273PQE comes closest in integer math, where the 0.1 percent delta is effectively a tie. Data compression is close at 2.7 percent. PassMark single-thread shows a 6.3 percent gap. These results indicate that integer-heavy workloads, compression tasks, and lightly threaded applications narrow the distance between the two processors. The Core 9 273PQE also has a higher boost clock at 5.90 GHz versus 5.60 GHz, which may help explain the relatively modest single-thread gap despite the Core Ultra 9 285's newer process node.

The Core Ultra 9 285 leads in memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, which likely contributes to its advantage in data compression and random string sorting. The Core 9 273PQE's support for DDR4 memory provides platform flexibility, though the recorded benchmarks do not separate DDR4 from DDR5 results.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 as the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. Its average benchmark score is 75488 against 66099 for the Core 9 273PQE, a difference of roughly 14 percent. The Core Ultra 9 285 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 95 versus 93 for the Core 9 273PQE. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 8224P at a 0.1 percent delta and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at a 0.3 percent delta, placing it in strong company.

The Core 9 273PQE's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at a 0.3 percent delta and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at a 1.1 percent delta. Its average score of 66099 places it slightly above the Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914) and slightly below the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855). The Core 9 273PQE is competitive within its own performance tier, but the Core Ultra 9 285 sits clearly above it.

The Core Ultra 9 285 pairs a higher core count with a lower TDP of 65 watts against 125 watts for the Core 9 273PQE. It also delivers higher memory bandwidth and more PCIe lanes. The Core 9 273PQE offers DDR4 support and a higher boost clock, but these features do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data. Users seeking maximum performance across rendering, encryption, floating point, and general multi-threaded workloads should select the Core Ultra 9 285. The Core 9 273PQE remains viable for integer-bound tasks and platforms requiring Socket 1700 or DDR4 compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores, while the Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores. Both have 24 threads.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multi-core gap?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, a 19.9 percent difference.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 9 285's 5.60 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, compared to 66099 for the Core 9 273PQE.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.90 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 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 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | $579 |

| Part Number | SA4Q9 | SRQD4 |

| Percentile | 93 | 95 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 66099 | 75488 |