Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus are two 20-core mobile processors from the same Arrow Lake-HX family, yet their benchmark results tell a story of divergent strengths. The data reveals a fascinating split: the 270HX Plus dominates modern rendering workloads and single-threaded tasks, while the 255HX counters with surprising wins in legacy tests and data compression. Both chips share identical core counts, cache sizes, process nodes, and memory support, making their performance differences all the more intriguing to dissect.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in Cinebench results, where the 270HX Plus completely redefines the single-core landscape. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 270HX Plus scores 5917 against the 255HX’s 2163, a staggering 63.4% advantage. This gap repeats in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 270HX Plus posts 596 versus 327, a 45.1% lead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 single-core, with the 270HX Plus ahead by 2.4% (2485 vs 2426). These are not incremental improvements; they represent a fundamentally different single-thread execution profile.

Multi-core Cinebench results paint a more complex picture. The 270HX Plus wins Cinebench R23 multi-core decisively with 41913 points, beating the 255HX’s 32612 by 22.2%. However, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin shrinks dramatically to just 2.4% in favor of the 270HX Plus (17603 vs 17187). Most curiously, the 255HX wins Cinebench R15 multi-core outright with 4916 points against 4224, a 16.4% victory. This inversion across Cinebench versions suggests the 270HX Plus scales better with longer, more demanding workloads while the 255HX holds an edge in shorter bursts.

PassMark tests reveal another layer of competition. The 255HX wins data compression (515143 vs 493179, +4.5%), data encryption (39499 vs 37813, +4.5%), extended instructions (41247 vs 39283, +5%), integer math (127126 vs 122449, +3.8%), and random string sorting (62591 vs 60020, +4.3%). The 270HX Plus counters with wins in floating point math (163567 vs 160624, +1.8%), physics (3843 vs 2926, +23.9%), and find prime numbers (482 vs 400, +17%). The multithread score is essentially a tie, with the 270HX Plus ahead by just 0.1% (48270 vs 48234). Single-thread PassMark also favors the 270HX Plus by 4.2% (4764 vs 4562). Overall, the 270HX Plus claims 11 benchmark wins against 6 for the 255HX.

Architecture Differences

Despite the performance gulfs, architectural specifications are nearly identical. Both processors use 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz. The boost clock differs slightly: the 255HX reaches 5.20 GHz while the 270HX Plus extends to 5.30 GHz. This 0.10 GHz difference likely contributes to the single-core advantage but cannot fully explain the 63.4% Cinebench R23 single-core gap. Both chips share the same 3 nm process node from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies match exactly: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support is identical—DDR5 with dual-channel configuration and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC. Both use Intel BGA 2114 sockets, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, and integrate Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The 255HX is designated as "Arrow Lake" architecture with codename "Arrow Lake-HX," while the 270HX Plus lists no architecture field but carries the "Arrow Lake-HX Refresh" codename. Both belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation.

The release dates differ substantially: the 255HX launched on January 12, 2025, while the 270HX Plus arrived on March 16, 2026. Both are active production parts with unlocked multipliers, and part numbers are SRVFG for the 255HX and SADST for the 270HX Plus. The "Refresh" codename for the 270HX Plus hints at optimizations beyond the clock speed bump, though the data does not specify what those changes entail.

Where Each One Wins

The 270HX Plus is the clear choice for modern multi-threaded rendering and physics simulation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41913 represents a 22.2% improvement over the 255HX, making it substantially better for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other long-duration compute tasks. The physics test win (3843 vs 2926, +23.9%) reinforces this strength in simulation workloads. Single-core performance is also decisively in its favor across all Cinebench versions and PassMark single-thread tests, meaning snappier application responsiveness and better performance in lightly-threaded tasks like web browsing or office productivity.

The 255HX carves out its own territory in data-centric workloads. It wins data compression by 4.5%, making it better suited for file archiving and database operations. Its data encryption win (4.5%) and extended instructions advantage (5%) suggest stronger cryptographic and SIMD-heavy processing. Integer math (+3.8%) and random string sorting (+4.3%) further cement its role in data manipulation tasks. Interestingly, the 255HX also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, which may indicate better performance in shorter, less demanding multi-threaded bursts.

For users whose workloads mix both profiles, the PassMark multithread score shows near parity (48234 vs 48270, a 0.1% difference), meaning general multitasking performance is essentially equivalent. The choice ultimately depends on whether the primary workload is rendering and physics (270HX Plus) or data processing and compression (255HX).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX reaches 5.20 GHz.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The 270HX Plus scores 5917 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2163 for the 255HX, a 63.4% advantage.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node from TSMC with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size.

Q: Which processor wins more total benchmarks?

A: The 270HX Plus wins 11 benchmarks, while the 255HX wins 6 benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Do the two processors have different cache sizes?

A: No, both have 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both chips?

A: Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors share most specifications, but key differences exist in boost clock, codename, release date, and part number.

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX | Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus |

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

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Not specified |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-HX | Arrow Lake-HX Refresh |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-16 |

| Part Number | SRVFG | SADST |

Identical specifications include 20 cores, 20 threads, 2.40 GHz base clock, 55 W TDP, Intel BGA 2114 socket, 3 nm TSMC process, 17,800 million transistors, 243 mm² die size, all cache levels, DDR5 dual-channel memory, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, unlocked multiplier, and mobile market segment. Both have no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270HX Plus is the superior processor for users prioritizing raw rendering performance and single-threaded responsiveness. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41913 versus 32612 for the 255HX represents a 22.2% advantage that directly translates to faster 3D renders and video exports. The 63.4% single-core lead in the same test suite makes it the obvious pick for any application that relies heavily on single-thread performance, from legacy software to modern game engines. The physics test win by 23.9% further solidifies its position for simulation and scientific computing.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX remains a compelling option for data-centric workloads. Its wins in data compression (+4.5%), encryption (+4.5%), extended instructions (+5%), integer math (+3.8%), and random string sorting (+4.3%) make it the better choice for database management, file archiving, and cryptographic operations. The Cinebench R15 multi-core win by 16.4% also suggests it handles shorter multi-threaded bursts more efficiently.

For users with mixed workloads, neither chip presents a decisive advantage in general multitasking, as the PassMark multithread scores differ by only 0.1%. However, the 270HX Plus wins more benchmarks overall (11 vs 6) and its margins in Cinebench are substantially larger than the 255HX’s PassMark wins. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the 255HX averages 62738 against 61834 for the 270HX Plus, placing the 255HX slightly higher in the overall standings with a 93rd percentile ranking for both. The 255HX also sits closer to its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (-0.2%) and Intel Core i7-13790F (-0.5%), while the 270HX Plus aligns with Intel Core i9-13900KF (0%) and Intel Core i9-13900K (0.1%). Ultimately, the 270HX Plus is the pick for rendering and single-thread performance, while the 255HX serves data-heavy workflows better. The choice hinges entirely on workload composition.