Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Review: AMD Should Be (Mostly) Worried

Packaging 

Let’s take a look at the packaging!

Packaging

1 of 3

The Intel Core Ultra 270K Plus comes in simple blue cardboard packaging, secured in a plastic tray.

Testing Methodology

Test-bed Standardization.

We have done our best to standardize all non-CPU components as much as possible by using identical storage devices, memory, and cooling components, and the same drivers and Windows versions. Both AMD and Intel platforms are running at a memory frequency of 6000 MT/s with their EXPO/XMP profiles. We have also ensured the Resizable Bar is enabled on both platforms.

Productivity & Content Creation.

We have used a variety of real-world tools to test CPU performance, including Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, Cinema4D Rendering, Blender, Microsoft Office, Compression and Decompression Benchmarks, and Synthetic Benchmarks from 3DMark and Geekbench 6.

Gaming Performance.

To reveal true CPU gaming performance, testing must artificially induce a CPU bottleneck. We’ll test the games exclusively at 1920x1080p resolution with medium or high settings. Testing at 1440p. or 4K shifts the bottleneck to the GPU, flattening the data and hiding the CPU performance delta. We’ll also be measuring the average FPS and 1% lows.

Power & Thermals 

We’ll be using a tool like HWiNFO64 to log Package Power (Watts) and maximum core temperatures during a 20-minute Cinebench multi-core loop and in games.

Test Setup

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, Intel Core Ultra 250K Plus
• RAM: XPG Lancer 6000MT/s CL30
• Motherboard: (AMD) ASRock X870 Phantom Gaming, (Intel) ASRock Z890 Taichi Lite
• GPU: ZOTAC RTX 5080 
• Liquid Cooler: ASRock Steel Legend 360 LCD AIO
• Motherboard BIOS: (AMD) 3.5v, (Intel) 3.24v
• Drivers: GeForce Game Ready 596.21
• Windows Version: Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8117)

Test – Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic Tests

1 of 3

The Core Ultra 270K Plus showcases excellent multi-threaded scaling, beating the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X by 13.6% in the overall score of 3DMark’s CPU Profile. Furthermore, the CPU continued its dominance in Geekbench 6, outperforming AMD by 5.1%, although it lost in the single-core test by a negligible 3%. However, in the Y-Cruncher benchmark, the narrative shifts, as this tool focuses heavily on memory bandwidth and AVX instructions. Here, the AMD Ryzen 9950X destroys the Intel Core Ultra 270K Plus by 16%.

Test – Rendering Benchmarks

Rendering

1 of 3

When it comes to pure, multi-threaded rendering in Maxon’s Engine, the 270K flexes its core count and thread scheduling perfectly. It is faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X by the 4%. In Blender, AMD’s top-tier CPU and Intel’s latest Core Ultra 270K Plus are basically neck-and-neck. We’ll call it a tie, though the overall difference is only 1%, as AMD is slightly faster, but Intel renders more frames if we focus solely on value.

Test – Microsoft Office & Productivity

Productivity Tests

1 of 5

Now we are taking a look at one of the most utilized applications in the desktop, AMD annihilates the Intel Core Ultra 270K Plus by 28% in Adobe Photoshop, and is almost identical in Adobe Premier; however, the Core Ultra processors totally crush the AMD in Microsoft Office applications due to the Intel architecture handling the data manipulation and calculation bursts significantly better than its competitor. Overall, the results for the Intel Core Ultra 270K Plus in Productivity and Creative applications are exceptional.

Gaming Benchmarks 1080p FHD

Gaming Performance

1 of 7

In games, the Intel Core Ultra 270K Plus is less impressive, though. Core Ultra 250K Plus offers greater value and runs more efficiently for gaming. The 270K Plus is still a highly capable processor, but it still cannot outperform the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in the majority of games, though the difference is not very huge. In many games, the 270K Plus provides basically zero advantage over the $199 Core Ultra 250K Plus in a few games. However, with more cores and threads, the 270K Plus provides smoother pacing, especially in Black Myth Wukong and Cyberpunk 2077. If high-refresh-rate competitive gaming is the goal, AMD still remains the undisputed king. Still, The 270K Plus seems to be a difficult CPU for gaming, offering flagship-level performance and exceptional frame pacing, but its inconsistency is still glaring, suggesting potential thread-scheduling or cross-die latency issues that can be easily addressed by the Intel platform drivers.

Clock Speed / Frequency

Clock Speeds

1 of 2

In these charts, the Performance Cores (P Cores) are always boosting to 5300~5400 on average in gaming. We did not notice any noticeable fluctuations. The E-Cores always ran at the locked 4700 GHz regardless of the workload. In Cinebench 2026, the Core Ultra 270K Plus ran at an average P-Core frequency of 5200 MHz.

Power Consumption & Temperatures

Power and Temperatures

1 of 2

Let’s talk about the power numbers now. The Core Ultra 270K has a default power limit of 250W, unless it’s unlocked, which is more than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X’s 200W limit. In Cinebench 2026, the Core Ultra 270K Plus pulls around 232W, which is 32W more than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, keeping temperatures around 75°C with the 360mm All-in-One Liquid Cooler. Well, if we talk about gaming, it paints a different picture here. In our CPU-centred gaming benchmarks, the CPU stayed within the 90W-130W range. In real-world scenarios, the power consumption would be a lot less, as you will be mostly GPU-restricted rather than the processor. The 270K Plus averages around 1.58 FPS per watt; the 250K Plus operates at a different efficiency level. On average, the 270K Plus is 50% less power-efficient than the 250K Plus in the games.

Here is the table.

Should You Buy It?

Buy It If

✅ If You Demand Strong Multi-Threaded Performance: The Core Ultra 270K Plus currently offers strong performance and value compared to AMD’s $550 Ryzen 9 9950X, with nearly identical results in heavy multi-threaded workloads.

✅ If You Want A CPU That Can Do Everything Without Breaking The Bank: With 24 Physical Cores (8P+16E), this CPU is for the extreme multitasker. We’re talking about users who are rendering a 4K premiere video, have opened dozens of tabs in Chrome, and are also using Discord at the same time. The massive e-core cluster means background tasks never interrupt foreground performance.

Don’t Buy It If

❌ If You’re Building a PC Strictly For Gaming: The much cheaper Core Ultra 250K Plus delivers average frame rates that are almost neck-and-neck with the Core Ultra 270 K Plus. In our CPU standardized testing, we only noticed the 5% performance difference at best. We suggest that our users spend the extra cash on a memory or storage solution.

Final Thoughts

Intel Core 270K Plus deserves all the appreciation it gets. Intel has done what AMD did a couple of years ago: providing more multi-threaded performance and decent gaming performance without breaking the bank. The Core Ultra 270K Plus is a processor for extremes. If your daily work involves heavy rendering or editing, or compiling massive spreadsheets, the Core Ultra 270K Plus would be a better choice at the time of writing this review, as it trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and often beats it. Well, here is the sad part: the gaming is where the 270K Plus’s value proposition falls apart.

It delivers excellent multi-threaded performance, but it completely fails to justify its premium over the Core Ultra 250K Plus (for gaming). The 250K Plus matched the Core Ultra 270K Plus in some games and also provided 49% better FPS-per-watt efficiency. Depending on how you look at it, the 250K Plus gives you 80% of the 270K Plus in multi-threaded workloads and almost neck-to-neck gaming performance while running cooler and drawing less power. However, the 270K Plus is an engineering marvel for multi-threaded performance, making it an exceptional choice for video editors and creators at only $299. For pure gamers, we believe it’s a tough sell.