Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is strikingly lopsided. The Ultra 7 270K Plus claims 14 wins across the head-to-head test suite, while the Ultra 9 285 takes only 3. This is not a typical flagship-versus-midrange story. The data suggests the Ultra 7 270K Plus dominates the majority of workloads, particularly in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks, while the Ultra 9 285 shows its strength in a narrow set of single-core scenarios.

The Ultra 7 270K Plus wins in Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, and every PassMark test except none. Its advantages range from a modest 3.8% in PassMark single-thread to a commanding 40% in PassMark extended instructions. The Ultra 9 285 counters with wins in Cinebench R15 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore. The R23 singlecore result is particularly dramatic, with the Ultra 9 285 leading by 64.7%. That single result defines the Ultra 9 285's profile: it is a processor built for lightly threaded, high-frequency bursts.

The use-case split is clear. For data compression, encryption, integer math, floating point math, prime number finding, random string sorting, and general multithreaded throughput, the Ultra 7 270K Plus is the stronger part. The Ultra 9 285 is the better choice for specific single-threaded workloads such as older Cinebench R15 singlecore tests and the latest R23 singlecore test. The R23 multicore win for the Ultra 9 285 complicates the picture, indicating that not all multi-threaded tests favor the Ultra 7 270K Plus. The R23 multicore score of 48945 for the Ultra 9 285 versus 44253 for the Ultra 7 270K Plus represents a 9.6% margin, showing that the Ultra 9 285 can win in sustained all-core rendering workloads despite losing in R15 and R20 multicore.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Core Ultra Series 2 family and share the same TSMC 3 nm process node. Both have 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning neither uses Hyper-Threading. The transistor count is identical at 17,800 million, and the die size is the same at 243 mm². The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 36 MB shared on both parts. Both use DDR5 memory, dual-channel configuration, and support ECC memory. Both have Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units as integrated graphics. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes on both.

The differences appear in clock speeds, power, memory bandwidth, and unlock status. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The higher base clock of the Ultra 7 270K Plus likely contributes to its dominance in multi-threaded tests that scale with sustained frequency. The Ultra 9 285 has a 100 MHz higher boost clock, which helps in single-threaded tests but not enough to overcome the Ultra 7 270K Plus in most workloads.

The TDP figures differ substantially. The Ultra 7 270K Plus is rated at 125 W, while the Ultra 9 285 is rated at 65 W. The higher thermal envelope of the Ultra 7 270K Plus allows it to maintain higher clocks under load, explaining its advantages in multi-threaded benchmarks. The Ultra 9 285 is a lower-power design despite its higher boost clock, which likely limits its sustained all-core performance.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The Ultra 7 270K Plus delivers 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285 delivers 102.4 GB/s. This 12.8 GB/s gap may influence memory-sensitive workloads such as data compression and random string sorting, both of which the Ultra 7 270K Plus wins decisively.

The codenames differ: the Ultra 7 270K Plus is Arrow Lake Refresh, while the Ultra 9 285 is Arrow Lake-S. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, making it a K-series part for overclocking. The Ultra 9 285 is locked, with no multiplier unlock. The Ultra 7 270K Plus was released on 2026-03-10, while the Ultra 9 285 was released on 2024-12-31. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299, and the Ultra 9 285 has a launch MSRP of $579.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Ultra 7 270K Plus comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 63506 against 45357 for the Ultra 9 285, a 40% advantage. This test typically exercises SIMD and specialized instruction paths, and the data indicates the Ultra 7 270K Plus has a substantial edge in these operations.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 6656 versus 4933, a 34.9% lead. This is the second-largest margin. Data compression shows a 33.6% advantage, with scores of 804322 versus 602121. Random string sorting follows at 31.6%, with 96945 versus 73651. Encryption shows a 25.9% lead, scoring 59097 versus 46949.

PassMark multithread gives the Ultra 7 270K Plus a 21.2% edge, with 68574 versus 56602. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 19% lead, with 24461 versus 20556. The R20 singlecore test also goes to the Ultra 7 270K Plus by 19%, scoring 3453 versus 2901. Floating point math shows a 17.7% advantage, with 229491 versus 194988. Physics shows a 13% lead, with 4064 versus 3598. Integer math is closer at 6.7%, with 175986 versus 164869. Prime number finding shows a 34% lead, with 615 versus 459.

The PassMark single-thread test is the narrowest Ultra 7 270K Plus win, at 3.8%, with 5068 versus 4881. This small margin indicates that in purely single-threaded throughput, the two processors are nearly equal, with the Ultra 7 270K Plus holding a slight edge in this particular test.

The Ultra 9 285 wins are concentrated in Cinebench tests. Its largest win is in R23 singlecore, where it scores 6909 versus 2439, a 64.7% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. The R15 singlecore test shows a 49.1% lead, with 696 versus 354. The R23 multicore test goes to the Ultra 9 285 by 9.6%, with 48945 versus 44253.

The R23 singlecore result is anomalous compared to the R20 singlecore result, where the Ultra 7 270K Plus wins by 19%. This suggests that the two processors respond very differently to the R23 singlecore workload, possibly due to the 100 MHz higher boost clock of the Ultra 9 285 combined with workload-specific instruction patterns. The R23 multicore win for the Ultra 9 285 also stands out, as the Ultra 7 270K Plus wins both R15 and R20 multicore. The 9.6% R23 multicore margin indicates that the Ultra 9 285 can sustain a higher all-core throughput in at least one major rendering benchmark.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the stronger processor in 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all PassMark tests and most Cinebench tests. It leads by double digits in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, multithread, and Cinebench R15 multicore. Its 125 W TDP and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth appear to enable these wins. The Ultra 7 270K Plus also has the higher base clock at 3.70 GHz, which likely helps in sustained workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the better part in three specific tests: Cinebench R15 singlecore, R23 singlecore, and R23 multicore. Its 64.7% lead in R23 singlecore is the most decisive result in the entire comparison. The Ultra 9 285 has a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 100 MHz higher than the Ultra 7 270K Plus, which explains its single-core dominance in the R23 test. The R23 multicore win is less easily explained by clock speeds alone, but the 48945 score indicates strong sustained performance in that specific benchmark.

The Ultra 9 285 operates at 65 W TDP, much lower than the 125 W of the Ultra 7 270K Plus. The Ultra 9 285 is also locked, while the Ultra 7 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier. For users who prioritize single-threaded rendering performance, the Ultra 9 285 is the data-supported choice. For users who prioritize multi-threaded throughput, data compression, encryption, or any of the PassMark compute tests, the Ultra 7 270K Plus is the clear winner.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785 and sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488 and sits at the 95th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 7 270K Plus include the Intel Xeon 6520P at a 0% delta, the AMD EPYC 4564P at -1.5%, the AMD EPYC 9175F at -1.9%, and the AMD EPYC 4565P at -2.1%. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 285 include the AMD EPYC 8224P at -0.1%, the AMD EPYC 4545P at 0.2%, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at -0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at -0.3%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: Both have 24 cores and 24 threads. Neither uses Hyper-Threading.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus wins the majority of multi-threaded tests, including Cinebench R15 multicore by 34.9%, Cinebench R20 multicore by 19%, and PassMark multithread by 21.2%. The Ultra 9 285 wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 9.6%.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Ultra 7 270K Plus has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus is rated at 125 W, while the Ultra 9 285 is rated at 65 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory. Both use DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, compared to 75488 for the Ultra 9 285. The Ultra 7 270K Plus is at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285 is at the 95th percentile.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Ultra 9 285 is locked.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 65 W |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Codename | Arrow Lake Refresh | Arrow Lake-S |

| Architecture | Not specified | Arrow Lake |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2026-03-10 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $299 | $579 |

| Part Number | SA4V6 | SRQD4 |

Both processors share the same core count, thread count, process node (3 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (17,800 million), die size (243 mm²), cache hierarchy (192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 36 MB shared L3), memory type (DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support, PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 20 lanes), integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU), socket (Intel Socket 1851), and market segment (Desktop).