Intel Core 9 273PE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T and Intel Core 9 273PE are both desktop processors with a launch MSRP of $549, but they are built on fundamentally different designs. The recorded data shows the 285T wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and posts a higher average benchmark score (51,310 vs 49,845), while the 273PE counters with three notable wins in compression, integer math, and physics. This analysis breaks down where each chip leads, what separates their architectures, and which workloads favor which processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 285T dominates the Cinebench suite with a consistent 7.3% advantage across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 285T scores 33,573 against 31,288 for the 273PE; in single-core, it leads 4,739 to 4,417. The same 7.3% margin appears in R15 and R20, both multi-core and single-core, indicating a uniform rendering performance gap.

The largest single win for the 285T is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 32,061 versus 22,719, a 41.1% lead. Prime number finding also heavily favors the 285T: 345 vs 203, a 70% advantage. Floating point math goes to the 285T by 27.8% (137,923 vs 107,884), and single-thread performance is 25.4% higher (4,576 vs 3,650). Extended instructions (11.6% ahead), multithread (8.5% ahead), and random string sorting (5.8% ahead) round out the 285T's wins.

The 273PE takes three benchmarks. Data compression is its best result: 405,885 vs 384,140, a 5.4% edge. Integer math follows with 139,410 vs 132,433, a 5% lead. Physics simulation shows the largest relative win for the 273PE at 8.9% (3,120 vs 2,842). These wins are concentrated in integer-heavy and compression-oriented tasks, while the 285T excels in encryption, floating point, and single-thread workloads.

The average benchmark scores place the 285T at the 91st percentile of all CPUs, with the 273PE at the 90th. The 285T's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900T (0.6% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-13900F (0.8% behind), while the 273PE sits within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and the Intel Core i9-13980HX. These margins are small, but the 285T's overall average is 1,465 points higher.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The 285T uses TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 273PE uses Intel's 10 nm process with no transistor or die size data recorded. The 285T is based on Arrow Lake-S, and the 273PE on Bartlett Lake.

Core counts differ sharply: the 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading, while the 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads, using hyperthreading to reach the same thread count. The 285T's base clock is 1.40 GHz and boost clock 5.40 GHz; the 273PE runs at 2.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. The 273PE has a higher boost clock by 0.30 GHz, but the 285T has twice the physical cores.

Cache layouts also diverge. The 285T provides 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, while the 273PE offers 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. Both share 36 MB of L3 cache. Memory support differs: the 285T supports only DDR5, while the 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 285T at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, though both use dual-channel buses. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity favors the 285T with 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 16 on the 273PE. Integrated graphics are also different: the 285T has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 273PE has UHD Graphics 730. The 285T uses Intel Socket 1851, the 273PE uses Socket 1700. The 285T was released on 2025-01-06, the 273PE on 2026-03-08. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data points to the 285T as the stronger overall processor. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, has a higher average score, and leads in every Cinebench test. The 285T is the clear choice for rendering, encryption, floating-point computation, and single-threaded applications. Its 24 physical cores and higher memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, despite the 273PE's higher boost clock.

The 273PE is not without merit. It wins in data compression, integer math, and physics simulation, and its 12 cores with hyperthreading deliver competitive multi-thread scores. The 273PE also supports DDR4 memory, which may matter for users with existing DDR4 platforms, and it has a higher base clock (2.30 GHz vs 1.40 GHz) and boost clock (5.70 GHz vs 5.40 GHz). However, its overall benchmark average is 2.9% lower, and it trails in the majority of tests.

For users who prioritize encryption, scientific computing, or general productivity, the 285T is the better buy based on recorded performance. For those whose workloads are dominated by compression, integer arithmetic, or physics simulation, the 273PE offers specific advantages, but the 285T's broader lead makes it the safer recommendation for mixed usage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to 5.40 GHz on the 285T.

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

A: The 285T scores 33,573 versus 31,288 for the 273PE, a 7.3% lead.

Q: Does the 273PE support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, the 273PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 285T supports only DDR5.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 285T has an average benchmark score of 51,310, compared to 49,845 for the 273PE.

Q: Which processor wins in data compression?

A: The 273PE wins data compression with a score of 405,885 versus 384,140, a 5.4% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The 285T is the winner for encryption workloads, with a 41.1% lead in data encryption. It also dominates prime number finding (70% ahead) and floating point math (27.8% ahead), making it the better choice for scientific computing, cryptography, and any task that relies on heavy floating-point arithmetic. Its single-thread performance is 25.4% higher, which benefits everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The 285T also leads in multithread performance (8.5%) and extended instructions (11.6%), so it suits rendering, video encoding, and general productivity.

The 273PE takes the lead in data compression (5.4% ahead), integer math (5% ahead), and physics simulation (8.9% ahead). These wins point to workloads like file archiving, integer-heavy database operations, and physics-based simulations. The 273PE's higher base and boost clocks may also help in short bursts, but the benchmark data shows its advantages are confined to these specific areas.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285T | Intel Core 9 273PE |

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

| Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture / Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 243 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache (per core) | 192 KB | 80 KB |

| L2 cache (per core) | 3 MB | 2 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2026-03-08 |

| Part number | SRQD3 | SA4QD |

| Series | Core Ultra Series 2 | Not recorded |

Both processors share a 36 MB L3 cache, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, and a locked multiplier. The 285T's lower TDP (35 W vs 65 W) and higher core count make it a more power-efficient design on paper, while the 273PE's higher clocks and DDR4 compatibility offer flexibility for certain platforms. The recorded data, however, consistently favors the 285T in overall performance.