Intel Core 9 270H vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, which wins 16 of the 17 direct comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 270H takes a single win. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66855, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 9 270H averages 38335 and sits in the 86th percentile.

The largest margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 486 against 112 for the Core 9 270H, a difference of 77 percent. This is a specialized calculation that strongly favors the newer architecture. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also dominates in PassMark extended instructions with 44565 versus 20079, a 54.9 percent advantage, and in floating point math with 162692 versus 70640, a 56.6 percent lead.

Multi-core rendering workloads show consistent separation. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4640 while the Core 9 270H manages 2464, a 46.9 percent gap. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows 18442 versus 10268, a 44.3 percent difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 30867 against 18000, a 41.7 percent margin. These results indicate that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scales far better across all available threads.

The Core 9 270H takes its only win in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 347 versus 328, a 5.8 percent advantage. That is a narrow lead, and it does not carry over to other single-thread tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins with 2603 against 1449, a 44.3 percent margin. Cinebench R23 single-core also favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus with 2261 versus 2040, a 9.8 percent lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4757 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus against 3944, a 17.1 percent difference.

Data compression results follow the same pattern. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records 568721 in PassMark data compression, while the Core 9 270H posts 333785, a 41.3 percent gap. Encryption work shows a 54 percent difference, with 42144 versus 19369. Integer math is closer: 125091 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus versus 97654, a 21.9 percent lead. Multithread performance in PassMark shows 51596 against 28764, a 44.3 percent margin, and physics scores 3494 versus 1966, a 43.7 percent gap. Random string sorting delivers 69090 against 36867, a 46.6 percent difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice for heavily parallel workloads. Its wins span every multi-threaded category in the database: rendering, compression, encryption, physics, sorting, and extended instructions. The margins are substantial in most cases, ranging from roughly 22 percent in integer math to over 75 percent in prime number searches. For users running content creation tools, data processing pipelines, or scientific calculations, the data points firmly to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

The Intel Core 9 270H wins only in Cinebench R15 single-core, with a 5.8 percent edge. This suggests that in legacy single-threaded applications that rely on that specific benchmark's workload, the Core 9 270H can hold its own. However, the newer Cinebench revisions and the PassMark single-thread tests all favor the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, so this advantage appears limited to the older test methodology.

The Core 9 270H is a mobile processor with a 45 watt TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop part rated at 125 watts. That power envelope difference explains much of the performance gap. The mobile chip achieves competitive results within its thermal limits, but it cannot match the sustained output of a higher-power desktop design. Benchmark results indicate the Core 9 270H is adequate for mobile productivity, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built for demanding desktop workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Intel Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It is part of the Core 9 generation with the Raptor Lake Refresh label. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake generation. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 9 270H does not list transistor or die size data.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, resulting in fewer total threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 9 270H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and additional shared L3 contribute to the performance advantage in multi-threaded tests.

Clock speeds are configured differently. The Core 9 270H has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher base clock of 4.20 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The higher base clock on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus helps sustain performance under load, while the Core 9 270H relies on aggressive boost behavior.

Memory support diverges. The Core 9 270H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but lists a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory, while the Core 9 270H does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 9 270H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics are different as well. The Core 9 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The multiplier is unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, allowing overclocking, while the Core 9 270H has a locked multiplier. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus was released on March 10, 2026, while the Core 9 270H was released on December 17, 2024. The launch MSRP of the Core 9 270H was $697, and the launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus was $199.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855, while the Intel Core 9 270H averages 38335. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the Core 9 270H.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 30867 against 18000, a 41.7 percent margin. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 18442 versus 10268, a 44.3 percent difference. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows 4640 against 2464, a 46.9 percent gap.

Q: Does the Core 9 270H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Core 9 270H wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 347 points versus 328 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, a 5.8 percent advantage. It loses all other single-thread and multi-thread comparisons.

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

A: The Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has more physical cores but does not support simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 9 270H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Core 9 270H is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the hierarchy clear. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus outperforms the Intel Core 9 270H in 16 of 17 recorded tests, with an average score that is roughly 74 percent higher. The largest margins occur in heavily threaded workloads, where the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by margins from 22 to 77 percent. The only exception is a single older Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the Core 9 270H leads by 5.8 percent.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers more physical cores, larger caches, a newer 3 nm process node, higher base clock, and significantly higher memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory, has an unlocked multiplier, and provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Its desktop socket and 125 watt TDP allow sustained operation at high performance levels. For any workload that uses multiple threads, the data indicates the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger processor.

The Core 9 270H remains a viable option for mobile systems where power consumption is limited to 45 watts. It delivers competitive single-thread performance in one legacy benchmark and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which offers flexibility. However, its performance ceiling is well below the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus across nearly every metric in the database. Users who prioritize multi-core throughput, data encryption, compression, or extended instruction workloads should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus based on the recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 270H | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 14 | 18 |

| Threads | 20 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Generation | Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | December 17, 2024 | March 10, 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $697 | $199 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SRQ6V | SA4UZ |