Intel Core i5-14490F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data between the Intel Core i5-14490F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus shows a decisive advantage for the newer processor. Out of 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins 16, with the Core i5-14490F claiming only a single victory.

The most lopsided result appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 615 against the Core i5-14490F's 122, a delta of 80.2%. This indicates a massive throughput advantage in integer-heavy, single-threaded mathematical workloads. Data encryption shows a similar gap: 59097 versus 18225, a 69.2% difference in favor of the Core Ultra 7.

Cinebench multicore results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 scores 6656 versus 2318, a 65.2% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 24461 against 9660, a 60.5% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore records 44253 versus 23000, a 48% difference. These are substantial margins that indicate the Core Ultra 7 delivers more than double the multicore performance in some tests.

The Core Ultra 7 also leads in Cinebench R20 singlecore, scoring 3453 against 1363, another 60.5% delta. PassMark single thread shows 5068 versus 3873, a 23.6% advantage. Floating point math goes to the Core Ultra 7 with 229491 versus 66558, a 71% lead. Integer math shows 175986 versus 87844, a 50.1% gap. Extended instructions deliver 63506 versus 21731, a 65.8% margin. Random string sorting shows 96945 versus 35608, a 63.3% difference. Data compression records 804322 versus 340026, a 57.7% lead. PassMark multithread shows 68574 versus 28662, a 58.2% gap. Physics scores 4064 versus 2093, a 48.5% difference.

The single test the Core i5-14490F wins is Cinebench R23 singlecore, where it scores 3247 against 2439, a 33.1% advantage. This is an unusual outlier in the data, given the Core Ultra 7 wins the R15 and R20 singlecore tests by wide margins. The R23 singlecore result suggests the Core i5 has a specific strength in that workload, but it does not translate to other single-threaded tests.

Looking at the broader database context, the Core i5-14490F sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus sits at the 96th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core i5 is 38149, while the Core Ultra 7 averages 93785. That is a 145.8% higher average score, confirming the head-to-head results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, compared to 38149 for the Intel Core i5-14490F.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Core i5-14490F beat the Core Ultra 7?

A: The Core i5-14490F wins Cinebench R23 singlecore, scoring 3247 against 2439, a 33.1% margin.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus leads by 80.2%, scoring 615 versus 122.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 44253, while the Core i5-14490F scores 23000, giving the Core Ultra 7 a 48% lead.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core i5-14490F ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus ranks at the 96th percentile.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 7 win every single-threaded test?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 wins Cinebench R15 singlecore (354 versus 327) and Cinebench R20 singlecore (3453 versus 1363), plus PassMark single thread (5068 versus 3873), but loses Cinebench R23 singlecore to the Core i5-14490F.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use fundamentally different manufacturing approaches. The Core i5-14490F is built on Intel's 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses a 3 nm node fabricated by TSMC. The Core i5 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-R, part of the Core 14th Gen series. The Core Ultra 7 uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename within the Core Ultra Series 2, with the generation listed as Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake).

Transistor counts differ significantly. The Core Ultra 7 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core i5-14490F does not have a recorded transistor count in the database, but its die size is 215 mm². The Core Ultra 7 has a larger die despite the smaller process node, reflecting the additional cores and integrated graphics.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Core i5-14490F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7's larger per-core caches and bigger shared L3 pool support its higher core count.

Integrated graphics represent another major architectural split. The Core i5-14490F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Core Ultra 7 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, which provides display output and basic GPU compute without a discrete card. This is a functional difference, not just a performance one, since the Core i5 requires a dedicated GPU for any video output.

The socket and platform differ completely. The Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851. These sockets are not cross-compatible, so a motherboard choice locks in one processor family. The Core Ultra 7 also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core i5 has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only. The Core Ultra 7 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the Core i5 does not have a bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory is supported on the Core Ultra 7 but not on the Core i5.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most visible difference. The Core i5-14490F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 has no hyper-threading, as its thread count equals its core count, while the Core i5 adds 6 extra threads over its 10 cores.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 7. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the Core i5. The boost clock is 5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing manual overclocking, while the Core i5 is locked.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Core i5-14490F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 has a TDP of 125 watts. This means the Core Ultra 7 requires a more substantial cooling solution and draws more power under load.

The Core Ultra 7 has a launch MSRP of $299. The Core i5-14490F has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. The release dates are also far apart: the Core i5 was released on 2023-12-31, while the Core Ultra 7 was released on 2026-03-10.

Part numbers differ as well: SRN35 for the Core i5, SA4V6 for the Core Ultra 7. Both are listed as Active in production status and target the Desktop market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins in nearly every measurable workload. It dominates multicore rendering, as shown by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, with leads ranging from 48% to 65.2%. This makes it the clear choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, compilation, and other heavily threaded tasks. The PassMark multithread test confirms this with a 58.2% advantage.

The Core Ultra 7 also wins in memory-intensive and encryption workloads. Data compression shows a 57.7% lead, data encryption a 69.2% lead, and random string sorting a 63.3% lead. These results point to strong performance in database work, file archiving, and secure data handling.

Floating point and integer math both go decisively to the Core Ultra 7. Floating point math shows a 71% lead, integer math a 50.1% lead, and extended instructions a 65.8% lead. The find prime numbers test, which stresses integer calculation loops, shows the largest gap at 80.2%. Physics simulation also favors the Core Ultra 7 by 48.5%.

The single area where the Core i5-14490F wins is Cinebench R23 singlecore, with a 33.1% margin. This suggests that in a specific single-threaded rendering workload, the Core i5 can outperform the Core Ultra 7. However, this does not carry over to other single-threaded tests, where the Core Ultra 7 wins by 7.6% in R15 singlecore, 60.5% in R20 singlecore, and 23.6% in PassMark single thread.

The Core i5-14490F also has a lower TDP of 65 watts versus 125 watts, which means it generates less heat and may be easier to cool in compact builds. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can lower platform cost if older memory is reused. But based on benchmark data alone, the Core i5 only wins one test out of 17.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus for anyone needing maximum compute throughput. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, has a 96th percentile ranking versus 86th for the Core i5, and delivers an average benchmark score of 93785 versus 38149. The margins are large, often exceeding 50% to 70%, and the Core Ultra 7 also brings integrated graphics, ECC memory support, and an unlocked multiplier.

The Intel Core i5-14490F remains relevant for a narrow use case: the Cinebench R23 singlecore workload, where it beats the Core Ultra 7 by 33.1%. It also consumes less power at 65 watts TDP and supports DDR4, which may suit certain low-power or legacy builds. However, those advantages are limited to a single benchmark and platform flexibility, not general performance.

For a builder choosing between these two, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the stronger processor across almost all recorded tests. Its 24 cores and 24 threads provide far more parallel processing capability, and its higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz helps in single-threaded tasks despite the R23 anomaly. The Core i5-14490F is a capable 10-core, 16-thread processor, but the benchmark record shows it is outclassed by the Core Ultra 7 in nearly every category. The Core Ultra 7's launch MSRP of $299 positions it as the higher-tier product, and the performance data supports that distinction.