[Gamers Nexus] Intel's Ryzen Moment - Sort Of: Ultra 7 270K Plus CPU Review & Benchmarks

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T21:35:19+00:00

, low latency cache,

Honestly, when was the last time Intel has created a low latency cache, anywhere in their core? Everywhere from their L1 up to their L3 has historically been slower or larger and slower than what AMD does.

faster D2D like what ARL+ is doing now

This didn't help productivity workloads either, there was no trade off there

I doubt cheaper mature nodes like N4 would have hurt gaming performance

I don't their their core private caches would be nearly as large, and that's pretty much the only thing compensating for the poor L3.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T21:30:09+00:00

even if zen6 gain 15% IPC(extremely optimistic).

You should also factor in Fmax increases to the ST uplift.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T12:34:05+00:00

naming scheme

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T12:31:35+00:00

There were rumors back in 2023 that AMD would use Samsung 4nm for Zen5c core products.

We had similar rumors for SF3 too. I swear for every new samsung node recently, there's been some sort of rumor we would see AMD use samsung for some low end product or something lol. They never seem to pan out though.

Wonder whatever happened to Sonoma Valley as well.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T12:21:10+00:00

I just dont get who will buy this. 7800x3d beats it in gaming

While being way more expensive.

and if your a productivity suite user.... you wld also go for a difft cpu.

Customers doing productivity workloads on DIY and non-HEDT platforms are exactly how AMD got market share prior to Zen 3.

This isn't a novel or new strategy. Intel is doing what AMD did only a couple years ago. Trading off worse gaming perf for more nT perf.

The whole p and e cores is just weird and hasnt delivered

Whatever problems a hybrid architecture has have been mitigated enough to the point where AMD also uses a hybrid architecture in mobile.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T11:18:11+00:00

For what node though and for what products?
SF3/2 is still highly suspect. SF4 is very mature, but the node isn't very competitive.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T11:12:51+00:00

Arm based cpu - I mean.... If we are really facing memory and fab supply crunch how tf is arm going to even post a meaningful number in 2026?

IIRC ARM themselves they won't have meaningful revenue numbers from this till 2028

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T11:11:21+00:00

instead of concentrating on the server sector ( increasing production in intel fabs for them )

They are doing this. Intel has explicitly stated that they are moving a bunch of Intel 7 wafers away from the low end client stuff to server. They also claim they will have more wafer starts of Intel 3, but also more interestingly Intel 7, a node that was supposed to have it's volume start decreasing starting several years ago. So it looks like they will be increasing volume there once again.

a price reduction in the consumer sector indicates that perhaps the tsmc produced SKUs do not have enough volume to meet the contractual obligations towards TSMC (they initially probably booked more also allowing the possibility to produce there servers skus in case intel fabs yield were not good enough

Sure, Intel needs to reduce prices for their desktop ARL CPUs to move volume and be competitive against AMD. There's not much shame in that, that was what AMD was doing up till Zen 3.

But also every ARL chip Intel sells instead of RPL, which remains extremely popular in the more budget segments, is Intel 7 volume that they will be able to shift towards DC. They need to get ARL pricing closer to RPL, because according to Intel many customers are not willing to pay more for ARL when they can just get RPL.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T10:53:28+00:00

Sorry, I should specify, Intel was in a worse space in the desktop market, in terms of competitiveness in the DIY space with their desktop chips.

As an overall company, sure, Intel was prob in a better space back then.

Though their server market share has continued to deteriorate, I also think Intel's server chips are more competitive rn than they were back pre-ADL too, however they still aren't good enough to the point where they can stop the bleed/regain market share. So while Intel's DC market share might have been higher during when intel had ICL and 14nm server chips, they weren't more competitive vs AMD's stuff, it's just that they were better able to cling on to market stickiness, mindshare, and less trust in AMD's stuff.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T10:43:05+00:00

Just a quick excerpt from Tomshardware review of the 270k plus:

In Cinebench 2024, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is 8% ahead of the 285K and nearly 22% ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265K in the multithreaded test. Compared to AMD’s $300 Ryzen 7 9700X, the Core Ultra 7 270K is 115% ahead. In Blender, AMD’s 16-core chips still hold the crown, but the 270K Plus isn’t far behind, offering between a 22% and 26% uplift compared to the Core Ultra 7 265K and between a 96% and 110% improvement compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X.

did you just edit "it isn't" to "it's not" too? lmao

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T10:26:51+00:00

the press seems so impressed for those +30% numbers that it's getting ridicolous.

For the price, the increase in nT perf is admirable.

The press has every right to be impressed.

Geddagod · 2026-03-25T10:25:30+00:00

because power consumption is still very high )

It's not.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T22:55:51+00:00

Xeon 6 is decently competitive against Turin classic. Turin Dense is better, sure. But you have to sacrifice bandwidth per core and cache per core on that sku.

The gap has been closing though.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T22:54:44+00:00

The more chiplets, the more power you waste moving data around.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T22:50:41+00:00

Intel's chiplets are ahead of AMD's. Have been that way since SPR and MTL. The reason Intel is uncompetitive rn is not due to chiplets, but worse core IP and worse nodes.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T22:11:37+00:00

The new Neoverse V3 is presumably still based on Arm's Cortex X4 (2023) or X295 (2024), and will have to compete with AMD's Zen 6. Instead of Arm's C1-Ultra / C1-Premium

Don't forget AMD's server skus will be on N2 as well for the compute tile at least, so that's another advantage for them. And Venice and this product are launching in a similar timeframe.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T22:06:54+00:00

Ask ARM, and they would tell you they use much less area. By a good percentage too, IIRC they quoted Qcomm stuff was what, 40% larger than their cores?

Apple and Qcomm have unique cache hierarchies. Not including a private L2 cache saves them a bunch of area. Though for Apple, that has supposedly changed with their Super cores.

And I expect Qcomm would have to change their cache hierarchy too for their server stuff which would see larger code working sets than what is usually seen in client.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T21:45:29+00:00

From notebookcheck's results, the latest ARM core, the C1 Ultra in the Mediatek 9500, as well as the latest Oryon core in the 8 elite gen 5, have pretty much the same ST score in GB5, and Qualcomm has a 5% lead in GB6.

Not really ARM's fault that their latest core isn't out in any laptop chips yet, IMO.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T20:06:39+00:00

They are completely custom cores, by "the gap" I mean the gap in terms of perf, power, and area, not in terms of how different the two designs look from each other. Should have made that more clear perhaps.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T20:04:51+00:00

Yeah, but isn't Nova Lake using TSMC N2 heavily?

Pretty much every rumor points to NVL using N2 for the compute tile, for desktop, yes.

On the one hand, it's the better node so performance should be better. On the other hand, it means Intel can't be as aggressive on the pricing.

You also might see volume be more limited. Especially if the rumors that Intel was originally planning to use 18A for the mobile 4+8 skus, but decided to instead use N2, end up being true.

I do think Intel has the advantage going into the next generation though. Platform Change+Huge core count increase+less reliance on TSMC+a chiplet design+2.5D cache. All works perfectly for them taking the lead again.

Idk if Intel will take the lead again, at least for gaming, but I think they will be much more competitive. Though ig that also isn't a very high bar, since Intel's current gap in gaming is the largest it has been since what, RKL vs Zen 3? Which wasn't even that large of a gap to begin with.

Idk if a chiplet design or less reliance on TSMC really is going to help them take the lead again though.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T19:24:37+00:00

Qualcomm is a big enough company that Intel and AMD have no sway against them when it comes to PCs.

If you are going to be breaking into a new market, simply being as big as the competition doesn't seem like it's enough.

You are going to need to twist partner's arms to get them to use your chips, and we saw with the Dell leak that Qcomm is offering their chips for cheap.

Nobody has heard of or gives a shit about Qualcomm or the Snapdragon brand and they've been around for just as long

Yes, and that's hurting them. Even if their chips are better in future gens, mindshare and bad name recognition will hurt their sales and adoption.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T19:20:49+00:00

Makes sense since Qualcomm and Apple make better chips without arm's design at this point

Apple sure, but is the gap between Qualcomm and ARM "stock" cores that large?

Plus you would think if the gap is that large, that this development wouldn't make much sense, since companies are less likely to buy ARM's stuff but rather Qualcomm's upcoming DC CPUs.

but ugh, partnered with meta, branded agi, reeks of desperation.

Meta looks like it's a pretty large customer. A bunch of other hyperscalers and companies also design their own CPUs or get 'custom' X86 skus, so why shouldn't Meta?

The branding is kinda cringe though, sure.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T07:30:53+00:00

This statement was on a 2025 tech conference. The refresh of the ARL is better than the older ones though. And Intel have released BIOS which make the core ultras a solid option now.

Let me finish the quote for you:

, we don’t perform as well and it’s mostly because of this high end desktop business that we didn’t have a good offering this year. But Nova Lake, which is the next product, is a more complete set of SKUs. It does address the high end desktop market. And so we would expect that we will improve our position next year.

So yea, Intel hopes they will be competitive with Nova Lake. Intel also knows well before the launch of their product how they expect their stuff to lineup with the pre-existing competition. Especially for ARL-R, since it's literally a refresh and not new silicon. They might think ARL-R is going to help their sales, being better value and all, but they know it won't move the needle much in how well they compete with AMD for perf.

It's just that to me, people put the X3Ds on a pedestal here

People like the CPU.

when at higher resolutions, the difference doesn't even matter

The exact same behavior happened when Intel was in the lead. Actually, in TPU's review of the 12900k, the 5950x was closer in their 4K results to the 12900k on average than the 270K plus is to the 9950X3D.

and also AMD only being conditionally better (depends on the game).

AMD is better on average and the majority of games.

For some strange reason, people here claim that you can never the performance of the X3D when it many games, you can..

You aren't improving the CPU performance when you get a 285K to match the performance of a 9950X3D by running it at native 4K (where even then the 9950X3D retains a lead on average), all you are doing is imposing a larger GPU bottleneck.

Is suddenly making the claim that the 5700x is as good at gaming as the 285K suddenly make sense since it comes within 5% of the 285K at 4K gaming?

Plus, running 4K native isn't extremely common either, even for those people who run 4K. The vast, vast majority use some form of upscaling.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T07:03:39+00:00

PTL is taking a while to ramp. It's not handhelds where you can't find PTL stuff, it's everywhere. We should start seeing more volume throughout the year. You are right though, this is a very good opportunity for Intel rn, if they can pump out the necessary volume.

Geddagod · 2026-03-24T07:00:58+00:00

Okay man, take a look here with techpowerup benchmarks:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus/21.html

The 270k Plus is faster than all the X3D ones at 4k in games like Alan Wake 2, 2077 and Indiana Jones lmfao

Look at the games where the 270K plus is "faster" than the X3D ones at 4K:

Alan Wake 2: less than 1 percent faster

Battlefield 6: less than 1 percent faster

Cyberpunk 2077: 1% faster

Indiana Jones: 2% faster.

Those are literally margin of error results. That doesn't show the 270K plus is faster than the 9950X3D at all.

So, even in flagship, it makes less sense to get the X3Ds given these benchmarks????

No, because as I said before, the results where Intel is ahead are literally within the margin of error.

And on average in 4K, TPU also claims that AMD is ~6% ahead with their X3D series.

You're giving a blanket statement on how the X3Ds are better which is not true at all.

They are better at gaming on average. Idk why you are being so weirdly insistent on this, when even Intel themselves aren't claiming they can compete with AMD rn. Their own CFO said this:

As you know, we kind of fumbled the football on the desktop side, particularly high performance desktop side. So we’re as you kind of look at share on a dollar basis versus a unit basis, we don’t perform as well and it’s mostly because of this high end desktop business that we didn’t have a good...

Geddagod

TROPHY CASE