Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus review: Back from the brink

Unbelievable productivity performance at an even more unbelievable price – shame gaming still takes a backseat.

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Intel focused heavily on gaming with the announcement of Core Ultra 200S Plus CPUs, and for good reason. Gaming was undoubtedly the weakest point for Arrow Lake chips, with Raptor Lake options (both 13th- and 14th-Gen) offering clearly better performance. Add on top of that AMD’s dominating lead in gaming with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, and now the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, and it’s clear why Intel focused on gaming as much as it did. It needs to stem the bleeding.

And it has vastly improved gaming performance, at least to the point where the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is competitive in its price bracket. Our test results are solid, though they aren’t quite as rosy as Intel’s claims. Before digging in, note that we tested with an RTX 5090 FE to isolate CPU performance as much as possible, and performance will vary with lesser cards and different fidelity settings. We tested at 1080p without upscaling and used a combination of High and Ultra graphics settings. You can find a full breakdown of our test system at the end of this review.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Jake Roach
Senior Analyst, CPUs

Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom’s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors.

  • Gururu
    I'd hate to be coming back into hardware scene right now. So many different SKUs from everyone, quite overwhelming.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I think it's a little controversial to include iBOT in a hardware review, unless you at least test with it both on & off, so see how much it's contributing.

    I'm not really surprised to see something like this come along. I figured we'd have it by now, but I thought it'd be accompanied by hardware changes that required it. Based on my understanding, it's not really different than what JIT-based emulators are doing, for instance like when you run x86 code on ARM CPUs. In this case, it just so happens to be doing x86 -> x86.

    I think the real story behind iBOT is APX and AVX10! Right now, we're just seeing a hint of what it will do for Nova Lake!
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Admin said:
    Gaming performance still struggles,
    114 minimum FPS on average in a suite of 17 games...."Struggles"
    Reply
  • colossusrage
    TerryLaze said:
    114 minimum FPS on average in a suite of 17 games...."Struggles"
    Yeah, poor choice of words, maybe struggles to keep up with 9800X3D, but on its own it's a good gaming CPU.
    Reply
  • usertests
    The die-to-die frequency increase has helped it to perform much better than a typical refresh, although it clearly tanks efficiency and idle power consumption badly.

    Combined with the price, while it's not magic, it's the best possible outcome for Arrow Lake.

    It will be interesting to see if the other reviews are so generous with iBOT.
    Reply
  • Gururu
    Reviews across the board are painting it as an absolute best for value. HU complained about the temps but the major tiff everyone had was of course the platform, being DDR5 and dead end. If I waited this long to upgrade from a DDR4, I'd just wait for Nova or Zen 6. If I have an 1851 already, the performance bump doesn't warrant more spending. If I was buying for family or significant others who don't upgrade period, this is a no-brainer.
    Reply
  • Notton
    I know builder and tycoon games aren't popular, but if you really want to test out CPU performance, load an end game save from Factorio, Timberborn, Cities Skylines 2, or Transport Fever 2.

    The path finding calculation will bring a 9850X3D to its knees, and you'll get to see the true value of an X3D processor.

    Also, where is the i5 250K review?
    Reply
  • warezme
    TerryLaze said:
    114 minimum FPS on average in a suite of 17 games...."Struggles"
    This is valid. The test configuration is a 5090FE at 1920x1080, where the CPU becomes the limiting factor. Otherwise if you were to put a 5090FE on pretty much any modern CPU you would get equally high frame rates even at higher resolutions just not as many as you would on a 9800X3D, 9850X3D or even 9700 where the 270 wouldn't keep up.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    warezme said:
    This is valid. The test configuration is a 5090FE at 1920x1080, where the CPU becomes the limiting factor. Otherwise if you were to put a 5090FE on pretty much any modern CPU you would get equally high frame rates even at higher resolutions just not as many as you would on a 9800X3D, 9850X3D or even 9700 where the 270 wouldn't keep up.
    No Ryzen that isn't an X3D tested here can keep up with the 270K+ in games, the more expensive and vastly slower in everything else 9700X included.
    https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/WVvc7x7yHrYgJKwdTp7WEo-1200-80.png.webpTom's should just add that the non X3D Ryzens are all a worse choice for gaming when they mention that better gaming chips are lackluster. That would be a way to seem unbiased.

    Edit: You could call the 270K+ the $300 9950X.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Gururu said:
    If I waited this long to upgrade from a DDR4, I'd just wait for Nova or Zen 6.
    But, what if they're both delayed until 2027, as some rumors have suggested?
    Reply