Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V are both members of the Core Ultra Series 2, but they serve completely different purposes. The 270K Plus is a desktop processor built for maximum throughput, while the 288V is a mobile chip engineered for efficiency. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the desktop part across all 17 recorded tests, with the average benchmark score of 93785 for the 270K Plus dwarfing the 23219 average of the 288V. The 270K Plus also commands a 96th percentile ranking against all CPUs, compared to the 76th percentile for the 288V.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation appears in multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 270K Plus scores 44253 against 10178 for the 288V, a 334.8% advantage. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a similar story: 6656 versus 1583, a 320.5% lead. Data compression in PassMark shows the desktop chip at 804322 compared to 186521, a 331.2% delta. Random string sorting follows with 96945 versus 22622, a 328.5% gap. These results confirm that the 270K Plus is in a different performance class for heavily threaded work.

The single-core results are closer but still favor the desktop processor. PassMark single-thread shows 5068 for the 270K Plus against 4274 for the 288V, an 18.6% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core has the 270K Plus at 2439 against 1950, a 25.1% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 354 versus 301.5, a 17.4% margin, while Cinebench R20 single-core records 3453 versus 997, a 246.3% lead. The R20 single-core result is an outlier relative to the other single-core tests, indicating a particularly strong showing for the desktop part in that specific workload.

Medium-length workloads follow the multi-core pattern. Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 24461 versus 7069, a 246% gap. PassMark multi-thread shows 68574 against 19810, a 246.2% delta. Integer math reaches 175986 versus 44019, a 299.8% advantage, while floating-point math records 229491 versus 59536, a 285.5% lead. Extended instructions show 63506 versus 15613, a 306.8% margin. Data encryption delivers 59097 versus 14141, a 317.9% gap. Prime number finding records 615 versus 195, a 215.4% lead, and physics simulation shows 4064 versus 1637, a 148.3% advantage. The 270K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two processors in multi-core tasks?

A: The 270K Plus leads by 334.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 320.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and 246% in Cinebench R20 multi-core. The PassMark multi-thread test shows a 246.2% advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score?

A: The 270K Plus wins every single-core test. PassMark single-thread shows 5068 versus 4274 (18.6% lead), Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2439 versus 1950 (25.1% lead), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 354 versus 301.5 (17.4% lead).

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The 270K Plus has an average benchmark score of 93785, placing it in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The 288V has an average score of 23219, placing it in the 76th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 270K Plus boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the 288V reaches 5.10 GHz. The base clocks are 3.70 GHz and 3.30 GHz respectively.

Q: How do the TDP figures compare?

A: The 270K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, while the 288V has a TDP of 30 watts. This reflects the desktop versus mobile design intent.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 270K Plus supports ECC memory, while the 288V does not. The 270K Plus uses DDR5 memory, and the 288V uses LPDDR5X.

Architecture Differences

The 270K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation. The 288V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and codename, belonging to the Ultra 9 (Lunar Lake) generation. Both are built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there. The 270K Plus integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 288V has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 270K Plus carries 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 288V also uses 192 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is 2.5 MB per core and its shared L3 is 12 MB. The larger L3 on the desktop part aligns with its multi-core workload focus.

Memory architecture differs as well. The 270K Plus supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The 288V supports LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile chip has higher memory bandwidth despite its lower core count, which suggests a design tuned for integrated graphics performance. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the 270K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 288V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics are distinct. The 270K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while the 288V uses Arc 140V. The 270K Plus is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, while the 288V is a mobile part with a locked multiplier. The 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299 and a release date in March 2026. The 288V has no launch MSRP recorded and was released in September 2024.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most visible divergence: 24 cores and 24 threads for the 270K Plus versus 8 cores and 8 threads for the 288V. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for the 270K Plus and 3.30 GHz for the 288V. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP figures are 125 watts for the desktop part and 30 watts for the mobile part.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1851 for the 270K Plus and Intel BGA 2833 for the 288V. The 270K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the 288V does not. L2 cache is 3 MB per core for the 270K Plus and 2.5 MB per core for the 288V. L3 cache is 36 MB shared for the 270K Plus and 12 MB shared for the 288V.

Memory support differs by type: DDR5 for the 270K Plus, LPDDR5X for the 288V. Memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s for the 270K Plus and 136.5 GB/s for the 288V. ECC memory is supported only on the 270K Plus. PCIe lanes are 20 for the 270K Plus and 4 for the 288V. Integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for the 270K Plus and Arc 140V for the 288V. The market segments are Desktop for the 270K Plus and Mobile for the 288V.

The Verdict

The recorded data gives no ambiguity. The 270K Plus wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, and its average score of 93785 is roughly four times the 23219 average of the 288V. The 270K Plus ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the 288V ranks in the 76th percentile. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the positioning: the 270K Plus sits alongside server-class parts like the Intel Xeon 6520P with a 0% delta and the AMD EPYC 4564P with a -1.5% delta. The 288V sits near older desktop and mobile parts like the Intel Core i9-11900F with a -0.2% delta and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H with a -0.2% delta.

The 288V is a Lunar Lake mobile processor with a 30 watt TDP and 8 cores. The 270K Plus is an Arrow Lake Refresh desktop processor with a 125 watt TDP and 24 cores. The performance separation is a direct result of these design choices. The desktop part has three times the cores and more than four times the TDP budget, and it uses that budget to deliver multi-core scores over 300% higher. The mobile part offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s, which can benefit integrated graphics workloads, but in CPU-bound benchmarks it cannot compete.

Where Each One Wins

The 270K Plus wins in every measured category. For multi-core rendering, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 334.8% lead. For data compression, the PassMark test shows a 331.2% lead. For encryption, the PassMark test shows a 317.9% lead. For extended instruction workloads, the PassMark test shows a 306.8% lead. For integer math, the PassMark test shows a 299.8% lead. For floating-point math, the PassMark test shows a 285.5% lead. For multi-threaded performance, the PassMark test shows a 246.2% lead. For physics simulation, the PassMark test shows a 148.3% lead.

The 288V does not win any of the 17 head-to-head tests. Its closest result is in single-core workloads, where the 270K Plus still leads by 17.4% in Cinebench R15 and 18.6% in PassMark single-thread. The 288V does have a higher memory bandwidth figure at 136.5 GB/s, and it offers a much lower TDP at 30 watts, which makes it suitable for mobile platforms. The 270K Plus offers ECC memory support, 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, an unlocked multiplier, and a larger 36 MB L3 cache. The 288V has no recorded launch MSRP, while the 270K Plus has a launch MSRP of $299. For any CPU-bound task in the database, the 270K Plus is the clear choice.