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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K are both 24-core, 24-thread desktop processors built on the same 3 nm TSMC process node. The data shows a surprising reversal of expectations: the lower-tier Ultra 7 270K Plus wins the majority of benchmark comparisons, despite the Ultra 9 285K carrying a higher launch MSRP of $589 and a higher 5.70 GHz boost clock. The Ultra 7 270K Plus, with a launch MSRP of $299, leads in 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, making this a competitive pairing that defies the usual top-to-bottom hierarchy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Ultra 7 270K Plus comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it scores 615 against the Ultra 9 285K's 541, a 13.7% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire head-to-head set, and it highlights a clear edge in integer-heavy workload patterns. In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the Ultra 7 270K Plus scores 44253 versus 42522, a 4.1% lead, which is the second-largest win for the Ultra 7. The R20 single-core test also favors the Ultra 7, with 3453 against 3388, a 1.9% advantage, while R23 single-core shows a 2.6% lead (2439 vs 2377).

The Ultra 7 also wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test with 6656 points against 6494, a 2.5% margin, and the R20 multi-core test with 24461 vs 24003, a 1.9% difference. PassMark data compression shows 804322 vs 790052, a 1.8% win, and data encryption results in 59097 vs 57745, 2.3% ahead. Extended instructions score 63506 vs 62277, 2% higher, and floating-point math runs at 229491 vs 224324, another 2.3% win. Integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting all follow the same pattern, with leads ranging from 2% to 3.2%. The Ultra 7 wins by 2% in multithread (68574 vs 67260), 2.1% in integer math (175986 vs 172379), and 2.1% in random string sorting (96945 vs 94927).

The Ultra 9 285K only manages three wins, and they are all narrow. In the Cinebench R15 single-core test, it scores 359 vs 354, a 1.4% advantage. The PassMark single-thread test also goes its way, with 5087 vs 5068, a 0.4% margin. The same 0.4% delta appears in the duplicate single-thread listing. These wins are small, and they do not compensate for the sweeping multi-core dominance of the Ultra 7. The benchmark results indicate that the Ultra 7 270K Plus is not just competitive, it is consistently faster across the majority of the recorded workloads, particularly in Cinebench and PassMark suites.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins 14 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Ultra 9 285K wins only 3.

Q: How large is the biggest single benchmark lead?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus leads by 13.7% in the PassMark find prime numbers test, scoring 615 to the Ultra 9 285K's 541.

Q: Does the Ultra 9 285K win in any Cinebench tests?

A: No. The Ultra 9 285K only wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test by 1.4%, but the Ultra 7 270K Plus wins all other Cinebench tests, including R20 and R23 multi-core and single-core.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Ultra 7 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, while the Ultra 9 285K has an average score of 83807, a difference of 9978 points.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both processors sit in the 96th percentile among all CPUs, but the Ultra 7 270K Plus has a higher average score.

Q: How do the single-thread PassMark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 9 285K scores 5087 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 0.4% higher than the Ultra 7 270K Plus's 5068.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 270K Plus is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads. Its wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R15 multi-core show a consistent advantage for rendering and CPU-intensive tasks. The PassMark multithread and physics tests also favor it, with 2% and 3.2% leads respectively. If the workload involves heavy number crunching, the find prime numbers test result of 13.7% ahead solidifies the Ultra 7 as the better performer for such calculations. The data encryption and data compression results also point to a slight edge in file archiving and security-related operations.

The Ultra 9 285K, conversely, only wins in the two single-thread PassMark tests and the Cinebench R15 single-core test. Its 1.4% and 0.4% victories are marginal, indicating a very slight advantage in short, single-threaded bursts. This does not make it a general-purpose better chip for everyday use, but it does suggest that for specific lightly-threaded applications where a single core is the bottleneck, the Ultra 9 can edge out the Ultra 7. However, given the small margins, the difference is negligible in practice. The Ultra 7 270K Plus is the better pick for anyone who runs videos, compiles code, or executes any kind of batch processing, while the Ultra 9 285K is only nominally better for purely single-threaded tasks.

Specification Differences

The two processors share almost all core specifications. Both have 24 cores, 24 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, and a TDP of 125 watts. They both use the Intel Socket 1851, have 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The process node is the same (3 nm, TSMC), with the same 17,800 million transistors and the same 243 mm² die size. They also both support DDR5 double memory, have dual-channel memory buses, and support ECC memory. The integrated graphics are identical: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The first difference is the boost clock. The Ultra 7 270K Plus has a 5.50 GHz boost, while the Ultra 9 285K has a 5.70 GHz boost, a 0.20 GHz difference. The memory bandwidth also differs slightly: the Ultra 7 270K Plus has a 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, whereas the Ultra 9 285K has a lower 102.4 GB/s. The launch MSRP is different, with the Ultra 7 at $299 and the Ultra 9 at $589. The release dates are also different, with the Ultra 7 released on 2026-03-10 and the Ultra 9 released on 2024-10-23. Finally, the part numbers differ: the Ultra 7 has part number SA4V6, while the Ultra 9 has SRQD5.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake Refresh codename for the Ultra 7 270K Plus and Arrow Lake-S for the Ultra 9 285K. The process node is the same: 3 nm and manufactured by TSMC. They are both part of the Core Ultra Series 2 and are classified as Ultra 7 and Ultra 9 generations, respectively. The architecture for the Ultra 9 285K is listed as Arrow Lake, while the Ultra 7 270K Plus has a null architecture field but is also from the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. Both have the same integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The key architectural difference lies in their boost clock and memory bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285K has a higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz, but the Ultra 7 270K Plus has the higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Ultra 9 285K also has a dedicated "Arrow Lake" architecture label, while the Ultra 7 270K Plus is an "Arrow Lake Refresh", but the underlying node and core design are identical. There are no differences in cache layout, PCIe lanes (Gen 5, 20 Lanes), or the number of cores and threads. The data suggests that the Ultra 7 270K Plus is a later refresh with the same core design and a more efficient memory controller, while the Ultra 9 285K is an earlier part with a marginal clock advantage.