Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive result: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX. There are no contests in the other direction. The largest margins appear in the PassMark extended instructions test, where the 270K Plus scores 63506 against 47016, a 35.1% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers follows closely, with the desktop chip at 615 versus 448, a 37.3% lead. These two results indicate that the 270K Plus has a substantial advantage in workloads that rely on specialized instruction paths and repeated integer operations.

Cinebench results reinforce the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 270K Plus scores 44253, while the 275HX records 35589, a 24.3% delta. The R20 multicore test shows a 22.9% gap, with scores of 24461 and 19899 respectively. Single-core performance also favors the desktop part, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 2439 versus 2204, a 10.7% lead. The R15 singlecore test narrows further to 6%, with 354 against 334. This consistent single-core edge suggests the 270K Plus delivers higher per-thread throughput despite both chips sharing the same core count and thread count.

PassMark multithread shows a 23% delta, with 68574 versus 55759. PassMark data compression delivers 804322 against 608381, a 32.2% advantage, and random string sorting shows 96945 versus 74320, a 30.4% lead. Data encryption follows at 25.4%, with 59097 versus 47112. Floating point math shows a 20% gap, 229491 versus 191186, and integer math a 13.4% gap, 175986 versus 155218. Physics performance lands at 21.7%, 4064 versus 3338. The average benchmark score for the 270K Plus sits at 93785, while the 275HX averages 67469. That difference places the 270K Plus in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 94th percentile for the 275HX.

The nearest rivals for each chip confirm the positioning. The 270K Plus sits within 0% of the Intel Xeon 6520P, and trails the AMD EPYC 4564P by 1.5%, the AMD EPYC 9175F by 1.9%, and the AMD EPYC 4565P by 2.1%. The 275HX trails the Intel Xeon w5-3525 by 0.3%, the AMD EPYC 4484PX by 0.5%, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX by 0.6%, while leading the Intel Xeon 6515P by 0.7%. The 270K Plus competes in the same performance class as enterprise server processors, whereas the 275HX sits closer to workstation-class parts.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same 3 nm process node at TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 17,800 million and die sizes of 243 mm². They share the same cache hierarchy: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Both use DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses, and both expose PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are identical, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The structural differences begin with the socket. The 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop platform, while the 275HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a mobile soldered design. The codename differs as well: the 270K Plus is Arrow Lake Refresh, while the 275HX is Arrow Lake-HX. The 270K Plus lists no explicit architecture field in the database, but its generation is described as Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake). The 275HX explicitly lists an Arrow Lake architecture and its generation as Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX).

Clock speeds separate the two parts significantly. The 270K Plus has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The 275HX has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. That 1.0 GHz base clock difference explains much of the performance gap in sustained workloads. The thermal design power also diverges: the 270K Plus is rated at 125 W, while the 275HX is rated at 55 W. The desktop chip consumes more power and dissipates more heat, which allows its higher sustained clocks.

Memory bandwidth differs modestly. The 270K Plus records 115.2 GB/s, while the 275HX records 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the 270K Plus but absent on the 275HX. The 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299, while the 275HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both chips have an unlocked multiplier, which means overclocking is possible on either, though the desktop socket makes that more practical for the 270K Plus. The release dates differ: the 275HX appeared on 2025-01-12, while the 270K Plus followed on 2026-03-10.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX in every recorded benchmark. The 270K Plus delivers an 18.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore, a 22.9% lead in R20 multicore, and a 24.3% lead in R23 multicore. Single-core leads range from 6% to 22.9% depending on the test. The largest gaps appear in instruction-heavy PassMark tests, where the 270K Plus leads by 30% to 37%. The 275HX never wins a single comparison.

The 270K Plus is the faster processor for raw compute. Its higher base clock, higher boost clock, and higher thermal design power allow it to sustain higher performance across all tested workloads. The 275HX, despite carrying the higher Ultra 9 branding, is constrained by its 55 W power envelope and lower clocks. The 125 W desktop part simply has more thermal headroom.

The 275HX is not without purpose. It is a mobile processor on a BGA socket, designed for laptops where power efficiency and reduced heat output matter more than peak performance. Its 55 W rating and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for portable systems. The 270K Plus requires a desktop socket 1851 motherboard and draws more power, which limits its use to desktop builds.

Buyers choosing between these two should base the decision on form factor. For a desktop system where performance is the priority, the 270K Plus wins on every measured metric. For a mobile system that must operate within a 55 W thermal budget, the 275HX is the only option that fits, and its benchmark scores remain competitive with workstation-class processors despite the power constraint.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX |

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

| Base clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 2114 |

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

| Architecture | Not listed | Arrow Lake |

| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2026-03-10 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $299 | Not listed |

| Part number | SA4V6 | SRVFK |

Both chips share 24 cores, 24 threads, a 3 nm process node, 17,800 million transistors, a 243 mm² die, DDR5 dual-channel memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 36 MB shared L3, an unlocked multiplier, and active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: Both have 24 cores and 24 threads. The core count is identical.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows a 37.3% lead for the 270K Plus, with 615 versus 448.

Q: Does the 275HX support ECC memory?

A: No. The 275HX does not support ECC memory, while the 270K Plus does.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The 270K Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the 275HX boosts to 5.40 GHz.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both use a 3 nm process node at TSMC, with identical transistor counts and die sizes.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 270K Plus averages 93785, while the 275HX averages 67469.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins every benchmark category in the recorded data. Its strongest relative advantages are in PassMark extended instructions (35.1% lead), PassMark find prime numbers (37.3% lead), PassMark data compression (32.2% lead), and PassMark random string sorting (30.4% lead). These results indicate the desktop chip handles encryption, compression, and specialized instruction workloads with notably higher throughput. The Cinebench multicore results, with leads of 18.4% to 24.3%, confirm that heavily threaded rendering and simulation workloads also favor the 270K Plus. Single-core results, while closer, still show a 6% to 22.9% advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX does not win any recorded benchmark. Its purpose lies outside raw performance. The 55 W TDP and BGA 2114 socket make it suitable for laptops and compact mobile systems where power draw and heat generation are constrained. The 2.70 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock allow it to operate within that envelope while still delivering scores that place it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The 275HX also has an earlier release date of 2025-01-12, making it available sooner, and its unlocked multiplier permits overclocking within the thermal limits of the host system.

For desktop users who prioritize compute performance, the 270K Plus is the correct choice. For mobile systems that must balance performance against a 55 W power budget, the 275HX is the only one of the two that fits the socket and power constraints. The 270K Plus also offers ECC memory support and higher memory bandwidth, which matter for data integrity and memory-heavy workloads. The 275HX lacks ECC support but remains a strong mobile processor in its own right, trailing the 270K Plus by 24.3% in Cinebench R23 multicore rather than by a wider margin that would suggest a fundamentally weaker architecture.