Intel Core 5 130UL vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

Intel Core 5 130UL and Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus occupy opposite ends of Intel’s desktop performance spectrum. The 130UL is a 10 core, 12 thread Raptor Lake part built on Intel’s 10 nm node, while the 270K Plus is a 24 core, 24 thread Arrow Lake Refresh processor on TSMC’s 3 nm node. The benchmark database contains extensive results for the 270K Plus, but no recorded scores for the 130UL, which means direct comparison relies on documented specifications and the 270K Plus’s measured performance relative to its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database holds no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. The 130UL has an empty benchmark array and zero recorded scores, so its average benchmark score sits at 0. The 270K Plus, by contrast, has a full suite of results across Cinebench and Passmark tests. Its average benchmark score is 93,785, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tracked by the database. This percentile figure indicates that the 270K Plus outperforms roughly 96% of all processors in the database, a very strong position.

Looking at the 270K Plus’s recorded scores, the multi-core results are particularly high. Cinebench R23 multi-core returns 44,253, Cinebench R20 multi-core returns 24,461, and Cinebench R15 multi-core returns 6,656. These numbers show heavy multi-threaded lifting capability. Single-core results are also solid: Cinebench R23 single-core scores 2,439, R20 single-core scores 3,453, and R15 single-core scores 354. Passmark integer math scores 175,986, floating point math scores 229,491, and extended instructions score 63,506. Data compression in Passmark reaches 804,322, while data encryption scores 59,097. The multithread score is 68,574, and single thread score is 5,068.

Because the 130UL has no benchmark scores, there are no wins to attribute to it in any measured test. The wins column shows 0 for the 130UL and 0 for the 270K Plus in head-to-head entries, which simply reflects the absence of direct benchmark pairings. The practical interpretation is that the 270K Plus carries all measured performance data in this comparison, and the 130UL’s capabilities must be inferred from its specification sheet alone. The 130UL’s 10 cores and 12 threads at base 1.60 GHz with boost up to 4.70 GHz suggest modest throughput, while the 270K Plus’s 24 cores and 24 threads at base 3.70 GHz with boost to 5.50 GHz indicate a much higher ceiling.

The nearest rivals for the 270K Plus provide context for its scores. The Intel Xeon 6520P posts an average score of 93,786, essentially identical with a delta of 0%. The AMD EPYC 4564P scores 95,183, which is 1.5% higher. The AMD EPYC 9175F scores 95,615, 1.9% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4565P scores 95,764, 2.1% higher. These deltas are small, meaning the 270K Plus sits within a tight performance cluster among high-end server and workstation processors. Its 96th percentile ranking aligns with this grouping.

Where Each One Wins

The 130UL has no benchmark wins in the database, so its strengths are defined by its design parameters rather than measured results. Its 15 watt TDP marks it as a low-power part, and its Intel Socket 1700 compatibility alongside DDR4 and DDR5 memory support gives it flexibility for systems that use older memory types. Its Iris Xe Graphics 80EU integrated GPU provides display output without a discrete graphics card. The 10 core, 12 thread arrangement with 12 MB shared L3 cache suits light multitasking and everyday workloads. The 130UL also uses Gen 4 PCIe with 8 lanes from the CPU, which is sufficient for standard expansion but limited for high-bandwidth devices.

The 270K Plus wins in every performance domain where data exists. Its 24 cores and 24 threads double the core count of the 130UL and match threads at 24 versus 12. The 5.50 GHz boost clock exceeds the 130UL’s 4.70 GHz boost by a substantial margin. The 36 MB shared L3 cache is three times larger than the 130UL’s 12 MB. The 270K Plus supports only DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, which is a high figure. Its Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, while lower in execution units than the 130UL’s 80EU Iris Xe, still provides integrated display capability.

The 270K Plus also has ECC memory support, a feature the 130UL lacks. This makes the 270K Plus suitable for error-sensitive workloads such as data processing or long-running computations. The 270K Plus uses Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes from the CPU, which is more lanes and a newer generation than the 130UL’s Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the 130UL does not. These specification differences translate into clear use-case separation: the 130UL prioritizes efficiency and platform flexibility, while the 270K Plus prioritizes raw performance and expandability.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the higher-performing processor by every measured metric. Its 96th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 93,785 place it far above the 130UL, which has no recorded scores and a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The 50th percentile for the 130UL is a default database value for parts without benchmark data, not a measured result, but it signals that the 130UL is not positioned as a high-performance part.

The 270K Plus’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44,253 and Passmark multithread score of 68,574 indicate strong capability for rendering, compilation, and other parallel workloads. Its single-core Cinebench R23 score of 2,439 shows solid per-thread performance as well. The 130UL’s lower core count, lower clocks, and smaller cache suggest it would trail significantly in these tests, though no direct numbers exist to quantify the gap.

The 270K Plus’s nearest rivals, all server-class processors from Intel and AMD, have average scores within 2.1% of its own. This means the 270K Plus competes at a level where small percentage differences separate top-tier parts. For a desktop processor, this is exceptional. The 130UL, with its 15 watt TDP and older architecture, targets a different segment entirely: low-power desktop systems where thermal and energy constraints outweigh peak performance.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward. The 270K Plus is the choice for users who need maximum compute throughput, support for ECC memory, and Gen 5 PCIe expansion. The 130UL is the choice for users who prioritize low power draw, compatibility with DDR4 memory, and a smaller footprint, though its performance ceiling is considerably lower. No benchmark results exist for the 130UL, so any performance comparison beyond specifications is speculative.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has recorded multi-core scores of 44,253 in Cinebench R23, 24,461 in Cinebench R20, and 6,656 in Cinebench R15. The Intel Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so no comparison is possible from measurements.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The 270K Plus has 14 more cores and 12 more threads than the 130UL.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the 270K Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 130UL does not support ECC memory according to the database.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, which is 0.80 GHz higher.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 130UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 270K Plus has three times the L3 cache of the 130UL.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts. The 270K Plus draws substantially more power.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 130UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel’s 10 nm process node. Its generation is listed as Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS). The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation, built on TSMC’s 3 nm process node. The 270K Plus has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 130UL has no transistor or die size data in the database.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm. The 3 nm node from TSMC allows for denser transistor packing and better power efficiency per transistor compared to Intel’s 10 nm node. The 270K Plus’s transistor count of 17,800 million reflects this density, though the 130UL’s transistor count is not recorded.

Cache architecture also differs. The 130UL has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The 270K Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 figures for the 270K Plus are 2.4 times larger than the 130UL’s, and the total L3 is 24 MB larger.

Memory architecture differs as well. The 130UL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The 270K Plus supports only DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The 130UL has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory support is present on the 270K Plus but absent on the 130UL.

PCIe capability differs. The 130UL uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The 270K Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. This gives the 270K Plus both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which matters for high-speed storage and multi-GPU configurations.

Integrated graphics differ. The 130UL has Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the 270K Plus has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The 130UL has more execution units in its integrated GPU, but the 270K Plus uses a newer graphics architecture.

The production status for both is Active. The 130UL released on April 7, 2024, and the 270K Plus released on March 10, 2026. The 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299, while the 130UL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Core count is 10 for the 130UL versus 24 for the 270K Plus. Thread count is 12 versus 24. Base clock is 1.60 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. Boost clock is 4.70 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP is 15 watts versus 125 watts.

Socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the 130UL and Intel Socket 1851 for the 270K Plus. These sockets are not interchangeable. Process node is 10 nm for the 130UL and 3 nm for the 270K Plus. The foundry is Intel for the 130UL and TSMC for the 270K Plus.

Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the 130UL, while the 270K Plus supports only DDR5. Memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the 270K Plus has a recorded bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is false for the 130UL and true for the 270K Plus.

PCIe is Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the 130UL versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the 270K Plus. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 80EU for the 130UL and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the 270K Plus. The multiplier is locked on the 130UL and unlocked on the 270K Plus.

The 270K Plus has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the 130UL has neither in the database. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the 130UL versus 192 KB per core for the 270K Plus. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core for the 130UL versus 3 MB per core for the 270K Plus. L3 cache is 12 MB shared for the 130UL versus 36 MB shared for the 270K Plus.

Release dates differ by nearly two years, with the 130UL launching in April 2024 and the 270K Plus in March 2026. The 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299, while the 130UL has none recorded. The market segment for both is Desktop, and both have Active production status. The 270K Plus has a part number of SA4V6, while the 130UL’s part number is listed as unknown.