Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245T Comparison

The Intel Core 9 270H and Intel Core Ultra 5 245T are both 14-core parts that land in the same performance percentile, yet they deliver entirely different strengths. The data shows a clear split: the Ultra 5 245T dominates in raw processing throughput and single-threaded speed, while the Core 9 270H fights back in specific memory-centric and integer workloads. With a 14-3 win record for the Ultra 5 across the head-to-head benchmarks, this matchup is less about overall parity and more about identifying which niche each chip serves best.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245T’s most decisive victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 26208 against the Core 9 270H’s 18000, a 31.3% lead. This is not a marginal edge; it is a generational gap in sustained multi-threaded performance. The single-core story is even more lopsided: the Ultra 5 posts 3699 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2040 for the 270H, a 44.8% advantage that highlights the efficiency of the newer architecture. Across the older Cinebench R15 and R20 suites, the Ultra 5 maintains a consistent 6.7% lead in both single- and multi-core tests, showing that its advantage is not an artifact of one benchmark version.

The PassMark suite reinforces the Ultra 5’s dominance in compute-heavy tasks. Floating-point math sees the Ultra 5 score 108499 against 70640 for the 270H, a 34.9% gap. Prime number finding is even more stark: 324 versus 112, a 65.4% difference that suggests a fundamentally stronger execution engine. Encryption also favors the Ultra 5, with 23656 versus 19369, an 18.1% win. Extended instructions follow suit, with the Ultra 5 ahead by 9% (22071 vs 20079). Even in multithreaded and physics tests, the Ultra 5 wins comfortably—30833 vs 28764 (6.7%) and 2278 vs 1966 (13.7%), respectively.

However, the Core 9 270H is not without its own victories, and they are revealing. In PassMark data compression, the 270H scores 333785 against 283812, a 17.6% win that indicates superior memory bandwidth utilization for that specific workload. Integer math also goes to the 270H, with 97654 versus 88676, a 10.1% advantage. Random string sorting, another memory-latency-sensitive test, sees the 270H ahead by 5.5% (36867 vs 34931). These three wins suggest that while the Ultra 5 has superior raw compute, the 270H’s older architecture excels in scenarios where data movement and integer operations are the bottleneck.

The single-threaded PassMark scores tell a similar story to Cinebench: the Ultra 5 leads with 4367 versus 3944, a 9.7% margin. This is consistent across both the `passmark_single_thread` and `passmark_singlethread` entries, which both list the same figures. Overall, the Ultra 5’s 14 wins against 3 for the 270H make it the clear benchmark champion, but the 270H’s specific wins in compression, integer math, and string sorting mean it is not a universal loss for the older chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Core 9 270H uses Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 245T employs the newer Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm node from TSMC. This node advantage is reflected in the Ultra 5’s transistor count of 17,800 million spread across a 243 mm² die, whereas the 270H’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. The 270H is part of the Raptor Lake-H generation, while the Ultra 5 is from the Core Ultra Series 2, specifically the Arrow Lake-S generation.

Core counts are identical at 14, but thread counts differ: the 270H supports 20 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Ultra 5 has 14 threads, indicating no SMT. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 270H has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Ultra 5 offers 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 24 MB of L3, but the larger per-core caches on the Ultra 5 likely contribute to its single-threaded superiority. Clock speeds reflect the architectural split: the 270H has a base of 2.70 GHz and a boost of 5.80 GHz, while the Ultra 5 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the Ultra 5 wins most benchmarks, underscoring the IPC gains from the newer process.

Memory support is another differentiator. The 270H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5 but offers a defined memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Ultra 5 also supports ECC memory, which the 270H does not. PCIe lanes are starkly different: the 270H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, making the desktop part more expandable. Integrated graphics also differ: the 270H has Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The 270H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1744, while the Ultra 5 is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1851, with TDPs of 45W and 65W, respectively. The 270H launched in December 2024, while the Ultra 5 followed in January 2025.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 5 245T is the faster processor in the vast majority of tests. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head matchups, including every Cinebench test and the critical PassMark compute workloads. Its 44.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 31.3% lead in multi-core are not minor differences; they represent a substantial performance tier gap. For any workload that relies on floating-point math, prime number calculation, or encryption, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice. The 270H, meanwhile, wins only in data compression (17.6%), integer math (10.1%), and random string sorting (5.5%), which are narrower niches. Given that both parts sit at the 86th percentile of all CPUs and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (38335 for the 270H vs 38194 for the Ultra 5), the Ultra 5’s wins are more numerous and more decisive. The data suggests that the Ultra 5 245T is the better all-around performer, while the 270H retains specific strengths in memory-intensive integer tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, with a score of 3699 versus 2040 for the Intel Core 9 270H, a 44.8% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Core 9 270H wins?

A: Yes, the 270H wins PassMark data compression (333785 vs 283812), integer math (97654 vs 88676), and random string sorting (36867 vs 34931).

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 14 cores, but the Core 9 270H has 20 threads while the Core Ultra 5 245T has 14 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T?

A: The Ultra 5 245T supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245T supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 9 270H does not.

Q: How does the Intel Core 9 270H compare to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T in multithreaded PassMark?

A: The Ultra 5 245T scores 30833, which is 6.7% higher than the 270H’s 28764.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245T is the winner in all compute-heavy scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26208 makes it the better choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any multi-threaded productivity suite. The single-core lead of 44.8% in Cinebench R23 also makes it superior for lightly-threaded applications like web browsing, office work, and legacy software that relies on one or two fast cores. In scientific computing, the 65.4% lead in prime number finding and 34.9% lead in floating-point math point to a clear edge in simulation, physics, and financial modeling workloads. Encryption workloads also favor the Ultra 5, with an 18.1% lead in PassMark data encryption, making it the better choice for security-related tasks. Its higher 65W TDP and desktop socket suggest it is designed for sustained performance in a desktop chassis.

The Core 9 270H, conversely, claims victory in data compression (17.6% ahead), which is critical for archive management, file compression tools, and database operations that involve heavy data packing. Its 10.1% lead in integer math is relevant for certain legacy codebases, compilers, and integer-heavy simulation tasks. The 5.5% win in random string sorting indicates an advantage in sorting algorithms and text processing pipelines. As a mobile part with a 45W TDP, the 270H is positioned for laptops, where its lower power draw and integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 EU may be more appropriate than the Ultra 5’s 64 EU Arc graphics. The 270H’s support for DDR4 memory also gives it flexibility in existing mobile platforms. For users prioritizing portability with occasional compression and integer workloads, the 270H has a role; for everything else, the Ultra 5 245T is the data-backed choice.