Intel Core i7-13790F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus Comparison

The Intel Core i7-13790F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus occupy the same performance percentile (93rd) but arrive from different generations and design philosophies. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Ultra 7 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the i7-13790F takes two decisive victories in specific workloads. This analysis walks through the numbers to determine where each processor excels and which type of user should favor each part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistency of the Ultra 7 270HX Plus’s lead across the Cinebench suite. In every single Cinebench test—R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core—the Ultra 7 wins by exactly 15.5%. The scores tell the story: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 7 scores 41913 against the i7-13790F’s 35404. Single-core R23 shows a similar gap, with the Ultra 7 reaching 5917 versus 4998. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific tuning.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The Ultra 7 continues its winning streak in several categories, with particularly large margins in floating-point math (163567 vs 110512, a 32.4% advantage) and prime number finding (482 vs 207, a 57.1% gap). Data encryption also favors the Ultra 7 by 16.2% (37813 vs 31703), and extended instructions show an 11.3% lead (39283 vs 34828). Physics performance leans 21.5% toward the Ultra 7 (3843 vs 3017), and multithreaded performance is 7.3% higher (48270 vs 44737). Even single-threaded PassMark scores favor the Ultra 7 by 11.6% (4764 vs 4212).

However, the i7-13790F fights back in two areas. Data compression is a 15.1% win for the i7 (567473 vs 493179), and integer math shows an even larger 23.7% advantage (151416 vs 122449). These are substantial margins, not edge cases. The i7’s wins suggest that its thread-scheduling and cache layout handle certain integer-heavy workloads more efficiently than the Ultra 7’s newer design.

Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the Ultra 7 edging ahead by just 2.4% (60020 vs 58607). This near-parity in a memory-latency-sensitive task hints that neither chip has a dominant memory subsystem advantage for all workloads. Overall, the benchmark distribution shows the Ultra 7 as the stronger all-round performer, but the i7’s two wins are significant enough to matter for specific applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus scores 41913 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 15.5% higher than the Intel Core i7-13790F’s 35404.

Q: Does the i7-13790F win any benchmark against the Ultra 7 270HX Plus?

A: Yes. The i7-13790F wins PassMark data compression by 15.1% (567473 vs 493179) and PassMark integer math by 23.7% (151416 vs 122449).

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 270HX Plus scores 482 versus the i7-13790F’s 207—a 57.1% difference.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus leads by 15.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (5917 vs 4998) and by 11.6% in PassMark single-thread (4764 vs 4212).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. The i7 has more threads but fewer cores.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 93rd percentile versus all CPUs, with the i7-13790F having an average benchmark score of 63080 and the Ultra 7 270HX Plus scoring 61834.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The i7-13790F is built on Intel’s 10 nm process node, while the Ultra 7 270HX Plus uses a 3 nm node fabricated by TSMC. This process difference is stark—the Ultra 7 packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, whereas the i7-13790F uses a 257 mm² die with no transistor count listed. The smaller node allows the Ultra 7 to fit more cores into a similar physical footprint.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, implying a hybrid layout with performance and efficiency cores. The Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads, indicating all cores are equal-threaded without hyperthreading. Cache hierarchies also differ: the i7 uses 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 33 MB shared L3, while the Ultra 7 uses 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core with 30 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7’s larger per-core caches compensate for its slightly smaller L3 pool.

The memory controllers reflect their intended platforms. The i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 270HX Plus supports DDR5 only. The Ultra 7 lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, a figure absent for the i7. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The integrated graphics also differ: the i7-13790F has none, while the Ultra 7 270HX Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The Ultra 7’s codename is Arrow Lake-HX Refresh, placing it in a newer architectural family, while the i7 uses Raptor Lake-S. The process node change from Intel’s own 10 nm to TSMC’s 3 nm is the most consequential architectural difference, enabling the Ultra 7’s higher core count and clock speeds. The i7’s boost clock is 5.20 GHz, while the Ultra 7 reaches 5.30 GHz—a small but meaningful edge for the newer chip.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 270HX Plus has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz for the i7 and 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7. Boost clocks are 5.20 GHz versus 5.30 GHz in favor of the Ultra 7. Thermal design power is lower on the Ultra 7 at 55 W, compared to 65 W for the i7, despite the Ultra 7 having more cores and higher clocks.

Sockets are incompatible: the i7 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114. The i7 is a desktop part, and the Ultra 7 is a mobile part. Process nodes differ at 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). The Ultra 7 has a listed transistor count of 17,800 million, while the i7 has none. Die sizes are 257 mm² for the i7 and 243 mm² for the Ultra 7.

Cache specifications are distinct: L1 is 80 KB per core for the i7 versus 192 KB per core for the Ultra 7; L2 is 2 MB per core versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 33 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support differs (DDR4/DDR5 versus DDR5 only), and memory bandwidth is listed only for the Ultra 7 at 102.4 GB/s. Integrated graphics are absent on the i7 and present on the Ultra 7 as Arc Xe-LPG 64EU.

The multiplier is locked on the i7-13790F but unlocked on the Ultra 7 270HX Plus. Release dates are far apart: the i7 launched in February 2023, while the Ultra 7 is dated March 2026. The i7 has a launch MSRP of $441, while the Ultra 7 has no listed launch MSRP. Part numbers are SRMBZ for the i7 and SADST for the Ultra 7. The i7’s market segment is Desktop, and the Ultra 7’s is Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the clear winner in rendering and multi-threaded productivity. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41913 versus 35404 makes it the better choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that scales across cores. The 15.5% advantage in all Cinebench tests indicates a consistent throughput edge. Floating-point math is a major strength, with the Ultra 7 leading by 32.4%, making it suitable for scientific computing and simulations. Prime number finding is not a 57.1% lead—it is a dominant 57.1% lead, suggesting exceptional integer processing in specific algorithmic patterns. Physics calculations also favor the Ultra 7 by 21.5%.

The i7-13790F wins in two specific areas that are worth attention. Data compression is 15.1% faster on the i7, which matters for file archiving, backup software, and database operations. Integer math is 23.7% faster, a significant margin that could benefit certain financial modeling, cryptography, or general-purpose integer workloads. The i7’s higher thread count (24 vs 20) may contribute to these wins despite its lower core count—the extra threads allow better utilization in workloads that benefit from hyperthreading.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 7 wins by 15.5% in Cinebench R23 and 11.6% in PassMark. This makes the Ultra 7 better for everyday responsiveness, office applications, and lightly threaded software. The Ultra 7 also wins data encryption by 16.2%, making it preferable for security-sensitive tasks. The i7’s only near-win outside its two victories is random string sorting, where the Ultra 7 leads by a slim 2.4%—essentially a tie, indicating similar memory latency characteristics in that workload.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the superior processor in 15 of 17 benchmarks, with wins across every Cinebench test and most PassMark categories. Its 15.5% lead in all Cinebench tests, combined with a 32.4% lead in floating-point math and a 57.1% lead in prime number finding, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads. Mobile users and those who need integrated graphics will also prefer the Ultra 7, as it includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU while the i7 has none.

The Intel Core i7-13790F is not obsolete, however. Its 23.7% win in integer math and 15.1% win in data compression are substantial and indicate that certain workloads still favor its architecture. Desktop builders with existing Socket 1700 motherboards and DDR4 memory can leverage the i7 without a platform overhaul, and its 24 threads may help in specific hyperthreading-friendly tasks. The i7’s 93rd percentile ranking, matching the Ultra 7’s, confirms it remains competitive in overall performance.

The choice depends on workload and platform. Users prioritizing raw compute, floating-point performance, and modern efficiency should choose the Ultra 7 270HX Plus. Users with integer-heavy or compression-dominated workloads, or those invested in the LGA 1700 desktop platform, can justify the i7-13790F. The Ultra 7’s lower TDP (55 W vs 65 W) and higher core count make it the more efficient and capable part on paper, but the i7’s specific wins prove that newer does not always mean better in every metric.