Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus: Full Review, Benchmarks & Verdict (April 2026)

$359. That's the price of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus at Newegg and Amazon in early April 2026. To put this in context: the Core Ultra 9 285K, which delivers essentially the same performance, launched at over $600. Intel has cut the price in half — and it's frankly the best thing that could have happened to this platform.

The 270K Plus features 8 P-cores + 16 E-cores, that's 24 cores and 24 threads for $299 MSRP. It's exactly the same configuration as the 285K, but with revised die-to-die frequencies and ring clock bumped up. And the results are there: Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus and TechSpot confirm that this CPU delivers 14900K performance — or better — while consuming 20% less.

We compiled data from all the reviews to give you the complete breakdown. And we also have an exclusive benchmark across 14 games to show you.

Click to enlarge

If you also want to see our review of the little brother, we did a dedicated article on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus which is a price-to-performance monster at $234. And if you want to see Hardware Unboxed's video review of the 270K Plus, it's here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQmQEypnHRY

Here's what Intel brings to the table with this processor:

The 270K Plus is essentially a remastered 285K. Same core count (8P + 16E), same 250W max TDP. But Intel boosted three key things: the die-to-die frequency jumps to 3 GHz (+43% compared to the 285K), the ring clock rises to 3.9 GHz (+200 MHz), and the IMC frequency gains 400 MHz. All this gives a CPU that hits 5.1 GHz all-core P-cores and 4.6 GHz E-cores in real workloads (measured by Hardware Unboxed under Cinebench).

Against the 265K (20 cores, 20 threads), the jump is even more pronounced: +4 cores, +4 MB L2 cache, higher frequencies. And the price? The 265K was $394 at launch. The 270K Plus does better for $299. It's almost insulting.

This is where the 270K Plus really hurts the competition. AMD has nothing to compete at this price point. The Ryzen 7 9700X also sells for $300, and it gets literally crushed in anything multi-threaded.

In multi-thread, the 270K Plus beats the 14900K by 10% and the 265K by 23%. That's 36% ahead of the 250K Plus. But the figure that hurts the most is against the Ryzen 7 9700X: +106% performance. More than double. And the 9800X3D? Beaten by 77%. AMD simply has nothing in this price segment for multi-threaded productivity.

In single-thread, the 270K Plus takes the lead, 4% ahead of the 250K Plus. The P-cores at 5.5 GHz get the job done.

In Blender rendering, it's 285 samples per minute — that's 121% more than the 9700X. In 7-Zip compression, it beats the 14900K, outperforms the 265K by 18% and the 250K Plus by 22%. Even in decompression — where it gives up 7% to the 14900K — it stays 27% ahead of the 265K and 37% ahead of the 250K Plus.

Only weak point spotted by Hardware Unboxed: Photoshop. It's a light-threaded workload, and Zen 5 architecture performs better here. The 270K Plus finishes 15% behind the 9700X in this specific test. But on Premiere Pro, which loads more cores, Intel regains the advantage with a 6% margin.

Let's get to gaming. And for that, we have benchmarks across 14 games with an RTX 5090 — to really push the CPU to its limits without GPU bottlenecking. Here's the overall average (source: Hardware Unboxed):

Click to enlarge

The numbers speak for themselves. At 1080p Medium, the 270K Plus delivers 206 FPS average with 157 FPS 1% lows. That's virtually identical to the 14900K (211 / 158) and 3% ahead of the Ryzen 7 9700X (200 / 142). But where it gets really interesting is the 1% lows: +11% compared to the 9700X. You feel the difference in-game.

At Ultra settings, same story: 169 FPS / 130 1% lows. The 9700X sits at 162 / 118. And against the 265K? It's a massacre: +13% at Medium, +12% at Ultra. The Arrow Lake refresh makes a real difference in gaming.

The average is nice, but each game tells a different story. Here are the highlights from the 14 games tested by Hardware Unboxed:

Battlefield 6 — Probably the best result. The 270K Plus beats the 9700X by 6% on average but especially by 30% on 1% lows at Medium. That's a massive gap that translates to much superior smoothness during intense moments.

Arc Raiders — 11% ahead of the 9700X at Medium, 22% ahead of the 265K. One of the games where the Arrow Lake refresh shows the biggest delta.

Marvel Rivals — At Ultra (GPU limited), the 270K Plus matches the 9800X3D. At Medium, it's 6% ahead of the 9700X on average and 17% on 1% lows.

Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty — Mixed results. At Medium, it matches the 9700X on average but with 12% better 1% lows. In RT Ultra (GPU limited), still up to 10% ahead.

Counter-Strike 2 — 8% ahead of the 9700X, but the real number is +21% against the 265K. The 270K Plus approaches the 7800X3D in this title.

The Last of Us Part II Remastered — This is the beatdown. The 270K Plus puts 15% on the 9700X on average and 34% on 1% lows. It delivers an experience comparable to the 9800X3D and 14900K.

Spider-Man 2 — +7% at Medium vs 9700X, and +17% in RT Ultimate. Very good score, just below the 14900K.

Rainbow Six Siege — Only game where the 9700X does better: 4% lead over the 270K Plus. But Intel remains 14-16% ahead of the 250K Plus and 20%+ ahead of the 265K.

ACC (Assetto Corsa Competizione) — Not the best result for Intel: 11% behind the 9700X. But it stays 22% ahead of the 265K, which shows the progress of the refresh.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room. The 270K Plus is not a frugal CPU. Under full load, it draws up to 250W — that's the same max TDP as the 285K. But let's put this in perspective: it's 10% faster than the 14900K in Cinebench while consuming 20% less power. Efficiency improves compared to gen 14, even if AMD maintains a lead.

In gaming, it's less flattering. Hardware Unboxed measured:

• Cyberpunk 2077 — 42% more than the 9700X for 12% more performance
• Space Marine 2 — 35% more for 10% performance
• Spider-Man 2 — 58% more for 17% performance. The worst ratio.

Temperature-wise, Hardware Unboxed measured a peak of 86°C under Cinebench with a 360mm AIO. That's hot but manageable. However, forget small tower coolers here — you need at minimum a large 240mm AIO, and a 360mm is recommended if you want headroom for overclocking.

Hardware Unboxed tested memory scaling across three DDR5 speeds. Good news: the 270K Plus is not very sensitive to RAM speed in gaming.

In short: you lose 1 to 5% going from DDR5-8200 (CUDIMM, super expensive) to DDR5-6000 (affordable). It's basically nothing. Don't bother dropping $300+ on an 8200 CUDIMM kit if your budget is tight — a good DDR5-6000 CL30 or CL36 2x16GB kit will do the job perfectly. DDR5-7200 is the compromise if you want to squeeze out a few percent without exploding the RAM budget.

At the same $300 price point, the matchup is painful for AMD. In gaming, the 270K Plus wins by 3% on average — not huge. But in 1% lows it's 11% better, and in multi-threaded productivity it's +106%. More than double. If you do anything outside of gaming (streaming, editing, compilation, rendering), the choice is obvious.

The 9700X's only argument: power consumption. It drinks half as much in gaming. And the AM5 platform has a future (Zen 6 confirmed), while LGA 1851 is end-of-life. That's a real consideration.

If gaming is your absolute priority, the 9800X3D remains king with 256 FPS average against 206 for the 270K Plus. That's a 24% gap you can't ignore. And the X3D consumes half as much. But in productivity? The 270K Plus beats the 9800X3D by 77% in Cinebench multi. Two different worlds.

At $380-400 for the 9800X3D versus $359 for the 270K Plus, the choice depends on your use case. Pure gamer: X3D. Gamer + creator: 270K Plus without hesitation.

The 250K Plus at $234 remains the best price-to-performance on the market. The 270K Plus costs 53% more for 7% more gaming FPS and 36% more in Cinebench multi. If you want to maximize every dollar spent, the 250K Plus is the rational choice. The 270K Plus is for those who need the extra multi-threaded power — or simply want the best Intel CPU without paying 285K prices.

Let's not beat around the bush: LGA 1851 is an end-of-life platform. Intel will move to a new socket with the next generation. Hardware Unboxed says it clearly: "it's being released on a dead platform". That's the biggest black mark against the 270K Plus.

On the other side, AMD's AM5 will receive at minimum Zen 6. If you're thinking about upgrading your CPU in 2-3 years without changing the motherboard, AMD has a structural advantage. Now, if you buy a CPU to keep it 4-5 years without touching anything — and the 270K Plus absolutely has the shoulders for that — the platform question becomes secondary.

The other problem is DDR5 pricing right now. It's not Intel's fault, but it impacts the total cost of a build. A good DDR5-6000 32GB kit runs around $100-120 — that's decent, but high-frequency CUDIMM kits can easily exceed $250.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is probably the best processor Intel has released since the 14900K. It offers 285K performance for half the price, it crushes the Ryzen 7 9700X in productivity, and it holds its ground in gaming with superior 1% lows compared to non-X3D AMD competition.

It's frustrating that it took Intel 18 months to find the right recipe. But hey, better late than never.

It's made for you if:

• You do content creation, development, 3D rendering AND gaming
• You want high-end performance without paying 285K/9950X prices
• You plan to keep this CPU for 4+ years
• Power consumption isn't a priority criterion

Skip it if:

• You want maximum gaming FPS (get a 9800X3D)
• You want a platform with upgrade future (get AM5)
• Your total budget is tight (the 250K Plus at $234 is the best deal)
• You already have a 14900K (the upgrade isn't worth it)

In practice, yes. Benchmarks show virtually identical performance — sometimes even slightly better thanks to higher die-to-die frequencies and ring clock. And the 270K Plus costs half the price ($299 vs $589). The 285K has no commercial interest anymore.

A 240mm AIO minimum, ideally a 360mm. Hardware Unboxed measured 86°C under load with a 360mm AIO. A tower cooler, even high-end like the Noctua NH-D15, might be close under heavy load. For gaming only, it'll work, but for sustained multi-threaded productivity, the 360mm is recommended.

Depends on your usage. For gaming alone, no — the 250K Plus offers 95% of gaming performance for 65% of the price. But if you do streaming, video editing, rendering or compilation, the 270K Plus's extra 6 cores make a real difference (+36% in Cinebench multi).

No. Memory scaling tests show 1 to 5% loss between DDR5-8200 and DDR5-6000. A DDR5-6000 CL30 or CL36 2x16GB kit is the sweet spot. High-frequency CUDIMM kits cost a fortune for minimal gaming gains.

Intel hasn't officially confirmed the end of LGA 1851, but everything indicates a new socket is coming with the next generation. If you buy a 270K Plus, do it knowing you'll keep this CPU for a long time. The advantage: Z890 motherboards are mature, well-supported, and their prices have dropped.

The 270K Plus. It offers similar gaming performance, 10% better productivity, and consumes 20% less. The 14900K also has its well-documented reliability issues. And you'll be on a native DDR5 platform with full PCIe 5.0.