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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K records an average benchmark score of 83807, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE records 31143. The Ultra 9 285K sits in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the Core 9 273PTE.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins this specific test with a score of 2886, which is 21.4% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K's score of 2377. This is the only head-to-head benchmark where the Core 9 273PTE comes out ahead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K boosts to 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the 5.50 GHz boost clock of the Intel Core 9 273PTE. The base clocks differ more substantially, with the Ultra 9 at 3.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz for the Core 9.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Ultra 9 285K has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 9 273PTE and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K are listed with an active production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families and manufacturing generations. The Intel Core 9 273PTE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture (specifically Arrow Lake-S), and is built on a 3 nm process node by TSMC. The Ultra 9 285K also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while those figures are not recorded for the Core 9 273PTE.

The core configurations differ sharply. The Core 9 273PTE provides 12 cores with 24 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach that thread count. The Core Ultra 9 285K provides 24 physical cores with 24 threads, so each core maps to a single thread. This structural difference explains why the Ultra 9 285K can deliver significantly higher multi-threaded throughput despite having the same thread count as the Core 9 273PTE.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 9 273PTE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 9 285K has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, also with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches in the Ultra 9 285K contribute to its higher single-thread performance in most tests.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 9 273PTE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Ultra 9 285K also has a wider PCIe interface with Gen 5 and 20 lanes from the CPU, compared to Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 9 273PTE.

The Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 9 273PTE does not. Both processors support ECC memory, but the Core 9 273PTE uses Intel Socket 1700, whereas the Core Ultra 9 285K uses Intel Socket 1851, so they are not socket-compatible.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins only one recorded head-to-head benchmark: Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 2886 against 2377 for the Ultra 9 285K, a 21.4% advantage. This indicates that for workloads which rely on a single thread and respond well to the specific scheduling and boost behavior of the Core 9 273PTE, it can outperform the newer chip.

Every other benchmark in the database favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. The largest margins come from multi-threaded and data-intensive workloads. For example, the Ultra 9 285K leads by 75.3% in PassMark data encryption, 74.4% in extended instructions, and 73.8% in find prime numbers. These results show that the Ultra 9 285K is the stronger choice for encryption, compression, floating-point math, and general multi-core rendering tasks.

The Core 9 273PTE may still appeal to systems constrained by its lower 45 W TDP and support for DDR4 memory, which can simplify platform integration. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the database shows the Ultra 9 285K dominating across 16 of 17 benchmarks.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| 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 |

| Release Date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $589 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SA4QJ | SRQD5 |

The TDP difference is substantial: 45 W for the Core 9 273PTE versus 125 W for the Core Ultra 9 285K. The base clock difference is also large, with the Ultra 9 285K running at 3.70 GHz versus 1.40 GHz. The Ultra 9 285K also has a newer release date in the database, having launched in 2024, while the Core 9 273PTE is dated 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a clear pattern of dominance for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ultra 9 285K scores 6494 against 2060 for the Core 9 273PTE, a 68.3% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a narrower gap, with 359 versus 290, a 19.2% margin. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 24003 versus 8586, a 64.2% difference, and the single-core result is 3388 versus 1212, also a 64.2% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 42522 versus 20445, a 51.9% lead for the Ultra 9 285K.

The one exception in Cinebench is R23 single-core, where the Core 9 273PTE scores 2886 and the Ultra 9 285K scores 2377. That 21.4% win for the Core 9 273PTE stands out as an anomaly in an otherwise one-sided comparison.

PassMark results follow the same trend. In data compression, the Ultra 9 285K scores 790052 versus 258704, a 67.3% advantage. Data encryption shows 57745 versus 14253, a 75.3% lead. Extended instructions: 62277 versus 15952, a 74.4% margin. Find prime numbers: 541 versus 142, a 73.8% lead. Floating-point math: 224324 versus 60673, a 73% advantage. Integer math: 172379 versus 82411, a 52.2% lead. Multithreaded PassMark: 67260 versus 24054, a 64.2% margin. Physics: 3938 versus 1917, a 51.3% lead. Random string sorting: 94927 versus 28973, a 69.5% margin.

For single-threaded PassMark, the Ultra 9 285K scores 5087 versus 3433, a 32.5% lead. The database also lists Geekbench results for the Ultra 9 285K only: 26702 multi-core and 2870 single-core; no Geekbench scores are recorded for the Core 9 273PTE.

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K as the stronger processor in almost every scenario. Its 24 physical cores, 3 nm process node, higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz, and larger per-core caches translate into decisive wins across Cinebench and PassMark workloads. The 96th percentile ranking versus 82nd for the Core 9 273PTE confirms the overall positioning.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE has one meaningful advantage: Cinebench R23 single-core performance. For applications that are highly sensitive to single-threaded execution and cannot effectively use multiple cores, the Core 9 273PTE delivers a 21.4% higher score. This could matter for specific legacy workloads or lightly threaded code that does not scale.

The Core 9 273PTE also operates at a much lower 45 W TDP, which suggests it may fit into power-constrained systems, though the database does not include power consumption measurements. Its support for DDR4 memory could ease upgrades on existing platforms, and its lower launch MSRP of $549 versus $589 for the Ultra 9 285K is recorded. However, the performance gap is so wide in multi-threaded tests that the Core 9 273PTE cannot be recommended for rendering, encryption, or data-heavy tasks based on the recorded numbers.

For users who need maximum throughput in multi-core workloads, the Ultra 9 285K is the clear choice. For users who prioritize a single specific benchmark result, Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core 9 273PTE holds the edge. The data shows 16 wins for the Ultra 9 285K and 1 win for the Core 9 273PTE, so the overall balance of evidence is strongly in favor of the newer Arrow Lake processor.