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

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX. The desktop part leads by margins ranging from 9.4% to 33.7% across the tested workloads. The Ultra 7 270K Plus sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 93785, while the Ultra 9 285HX lands in the 95th percentile with an average score of 76155. This places the desktop chip roughly 23% higher in overall average score, a gap that is consistent across every individual test.

The Ultra 9 285HX is a mobile processor, and its 55 TDP rating reflects the thermal constraints of that segment. The Ultra 7 270K Plus carries a 125 TDP rating and is designed for desktop sockets with more generous power delivery. For users building a desktop system where power draw is not the primary constraint, the Ultra 7 270K Plus is the clear performer. For users who need a high-core-count mobile processor in a laptop or compact form factor, the Ultra 9 285HX remains the only viable option of the two, despite its lower benchmark results.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce this positioning. The Ultra 7 270K Plus sits within 2.1% of several AMD EPYC server parts (the 4564P trails by 1.5%, the 9175F by 1.9%, the 4565P by 2.1%), while the Xeon 6520P matches it almost exactly with a 0% delta. The Ultra 9 285HX, by contrast, trades blows with AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (0.1% behind) and Ryzen 9 9950X3D (0.5% ahead), showing it is competitive within its mobile class even if it cannot match the desktop part.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental silicon. The Ultra 7 270K Plus and Ultra 9 285HX are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Both use 24 cores and 24 threads, with no hyper-threading overhead. The cache hierarchy is identical: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither supports 3D V-Cache.

The key architectural difference is the platform and power envelope. The Ultra 7 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 and is codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, while the Ultra 9 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114 and is codenamed Arrow Lake-HX. The desktop part has a base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to 2.80 GHz for the mobile chip, while both boost to 5.50 GHz. This base clock advantage of 0.9 GHz is likely a major contributor to the desktop part's consistent lead, particularly in single-threaded workloads where sustained frequency matters most.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The Ultra 7 270K Plus achieves 115.2 GB/s, while the Ultra 9 285HX is limited to 102.4 GB/s, despite both using dual-channel DDR5. This 12.8 GB/s difference could affect memory-sensitive workloads. Both parts support ECC memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, and integrate Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Both have unlocked multipliers, though the mobile part's BGA socket makes practical overclocking unlikely.

The release timeline also differs: the Ultra 9 285HX launched in January 2025, while the Ultra 7 270K Plus followed in March 2026. The desktop part is the newer design, which may explain some of its performance advantage beyond just the power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no workload category where the Ultra 9 285HX wins. Across all 17 head-to-head tests, the Ultra 7 270K Plus takes every single one. The margin varies by workload type, which reveals where the desktop part's advantages matter most.

The largest gaps appear in PassMark's extended instructions test (29.2% ahead), random string sorting (25.6% ahead), and data compression (27.3% ahead). These are tests that stress sustained multi-threaded throughput and memory bandwidth. The smallest margins are in single-threaded tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (9.4% ahead), PassMark single-thread (9.7% ahead), and Cinebench R23 single-core (11.5% ahead). This pattern suggests that the desktop part's higher base clock and memory bandwidth provide the biggest benefits in parallel workloads, while its single-thread advantage is more modest but still clear.

For users running long, sustained compute tasks such as rendering, encoding, or data processing, the Ultra 7 270K Plus offers a substantial advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 44253 versus 36429.5 is a 21.5% lead that will translate directly into faster render times. For users in the mobile space, the Ultra 9 285HX's 55 TDP rating means it can fit in laptops where the 125 TDP desktop part cannot be installed at all, so that segment retains its purpose despite the performance deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: Both have 24 cores and 24 threads. There is no core count advantage for either part.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus leads in every single-threaded test. The smallest margin is 9.4% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and the largest is 11.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core. PassMark single-thread shows a 9.7% lead.

Q: How does the mobile chip compare to its own rivals?

A: The Ultra 9 285HX is nearly even with AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (0.1% behind), slightly ahead of Ryzen 9 9950X3D (0.5% ahead), and within 0.5% of AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX.

Q: Does the desktop part support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both processors support ECC memory. They also both use dual-channel DDR5, though the Ultra 7 270K Plus has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both have unlocked multipliers. However, the Ultra 9 285HX uses a BGA socket, which is soldered to the motherboard and not user-replaceable.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 270K Plus leads by 33.7% (615 versus 460).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from 17 benchmark comparisons shows the Ultra 7 270K Plus winning every test. The multi-core Cinebench results establish the overall pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the desktop part scores 6656 against 5656.5, a 17.7% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 20.9% gap (24461 versus 20236), and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 21.5% gap (44253 versus 36429.5). These results indicate that sustained multi-threaded performance improves as the test duration lengthens, suggesting the desktop part's thermal headroom allows it to maintain higher clocks for longer.

Single-core Cinebench tests show smaller but consistent leads. R15 single-core gives 354 versus 323.5 (9.4%), R20 gives 3453 versus 2856 (20.9%), and R23 gives 2439 versus 2187.5 (11.5%). The R20 result is an outlier in this group, showing a larger margin than the other two single-core tests.

The PassMark suite provides a broader view across different workload types. Data compression shows a 27.3% lead (804322 versus 631885), data encryption shows 21.7% (59097 versus 48567), and extended instructions shows 29.2% (63506 versus 49148). Floating point math delivers a 17.7% lead (229491 versus 194998), integer math gives 13.5% (175986 versus 155076), and the multithread test shows 20.5% (68574 versus 56902).

Random string sorting, which often stresses memory latency and cache behavior, shows a 25.6% gap (96945 versus 77196). Physics simulation gives 16.9% (4064 versus 3476). The find prime numbers test, which is highly sensitive to integer throughput and clock speed, shows the largest margin of all at 33.7% (615 versus 460).

The two PassMark single-thread tests (listed as single_thread and singlethread) both show identical scores of 5068 for the Ultra 7 270K Plus and 4618 for the Ultra 9 285HX, a 9.7% lead. These two entries appear to be the same test recorded under slightly different names, but both confirm the same result.

Specification Differences

The two processors share most core specifications but differ in several key areas. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Ultra 9 285HX runs at 2.80 GHz. Both reach 5.50 GHz boost. The desktop part carries a 125 TDP, while the mobile part is rated at 55 TDP.

The sockets differ completely: Intel Socket 1851 for the desktop chip versus Intel BGA 2114 for the mobile chip. The codenames also differ: Arrow Lake Refresh versus Arrow Lake-HX. The release dates are distinct, with the mobile part launching in January 2025 and the desktop part in March 2026.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiator: 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 7 270K Plus versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 9 285HX. Both support dual-channel DDR5 and ECC memory.

The Ultra 7 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299. The Ultra 9 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The market segments differ: Desktop for the Ultra 7 270K Plus and Mobile for the Ultra 9 285HX. Both have active production status and unlocked multipliers. Both integrate the same Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, and both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The part numbers are different: SA4V6 for the desktop chip and SRVFJ for the mobile chip. Both are built on 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die size, with identical cache hierarchies of 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.