Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D — Can Intel finally beat X3D?

The 270K Plus and 7800X3D box.
(Image credit: AMD, Intel)
18

Arrow Lake fell far short of expectations from gamers and enthusiasts. It was a one-two punch for Intel, not only falling short of AMD’s competition on the X3D front in games, but also barely matching the regular Zen 5 range in applications.

Now, Intel is trying to make a big impact with Arrow Lake Refresh. Intel has launched the Core Ultra 270K Plus and 250K Plus at competitive price points in an effort to regain some of the ground they lost with Arrow Lake, and both chips have earned a spot among the best CPUs for gaming.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

With contributions from
  • Stevemeister
    The last table refers to the 9700X but the rest of the article refers to the 7800X3D
    Reply
  • megamanxtreme
    Stevemeister said:
    The last table refers to the 9700X but the rest of the article refers to the 7800X3D
    Beat me to it. Yes, agree on that error.

    Been AMD all my life on the processor, even during Sandy Bridge era. I always passed on Intel, and to consider any company today to replace my current desktop with Ryzen 5 1600X and i7-10750H, only to be pulled back to AMD due to X3D cache. I read somewhere that Fallout 4 had an improvement on those lows, when testers thought that both CPU companies hit a wall on CPU-bound limits/draw calls.
    Reply
  • PEnns
    "....even the last-gen Ryzen 7 7800X3D is holding its own."
    So, why are you comparing the last-gen AMD to the newest Intel??
    Reply
  • Shiznizzle
    PEnns said:
    "....even the last-gen Ryzen 7 7800X3D is holding its own."
    So, why are you comparing the last-gen AMD to the newest Intel??
    Based on price point i think. That is the only thing i came u with. They are within 44 dollars of each other but a whole year apart as the Intel chip was just released a month ago.

    I applaud Intel for the gains lately but i dont think comparing a chip that was released last month with a chip that was released a year ago is even fair. So what if they are priced similar. Sort of, 44 dollars apart.

    Intel will have to do better than how much can we get away with charging rather than based on actual performance
    Reply
  • Smuty
    Shiznizzle said:
    Based on price point i think. That is the only thing i came u with. They are within 44 dollars of each other but a whole year apart as the Intel chip was just released a month ago.

    I applaud Intel for the gains lately but i dont think comparing a chip that was released last month with a chip that was released a year ago is even fair. So what if they are priced similar. Sort of, 44 dollars apart.

    Intel will have to do better than how much can we get away with charging rather than based on actual performance
    More like 3 years ago not last year.

    Even if compared to the 9800X3D even that one is almost 2 years old.
    Reply
  • EDiablo
    PEnns said:
    "....even the last-gen Ryzen 7 7800X3D is holding its own."
    So, why are you comparing the last-gen AMD to the newest Intel??
    My brother in tech, look at the URL. Tom's Hardware has been Intel's primary propaganda site since the announcement of the Athlon. A Pentium III could beat any Ryzen if Tom's Hardware is in charge of the benchmarking.
    Reply
  • Kindaian
    Also, the fact that Intel CPUs have performance + economy cores, while AMD ones are all performance ones.
    And AMD consumes under load less 100W than Intel is also significant. Less W = less heat generated.

    Even if performance is similar, AMD still has plenty of other advantages.
    Reply
  • PEnns
    Kindaian said:
    Also, the fact that Intel CPUs have performance + economy cores, while AMD ones are all performance ones.
    And AMD consumes under load less 100W than Intel is also significant. Less W = less heat generated.

    Even if performance is similar, AMD still has plenty of other advantages.

    What I find totally unethical also: Nvidia had tons of issues with their GPUs the last 2 years, but you wouldn't know because that was never a negative in comparison reviews.

    But when the same issues plagued AMD till about 3 years ago, they definitely were mentioned as Cons, even after they were fixed!!!
    Reply
  • LordVile
    PEnns said:
    What I find totally unethical also: Nvidia had tons of issues with their GPUs the last 2 years, but you wouldn't know because that was never a negative in comparison reviews.

    But when the same issues plagued AMD till about 3 years ago, they definitely were mentioned as Cons, even after they were fixed!!!
    The Nvidia issues are overblown though due to the amount of people with cards, my AMD card still had issues that were present in the RX480 I had nearly 10 years ago.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Kindaian said:
    Also, the fact that Intel CPUs have performance + economy cores, while AMD ones are all performance ones.
    And AMD consumes under load less 100W than Intel is also significant. Less W = less heat generated.

    Even if performance is similar, AMD still has plenty of other advantages.
    Did you even look at this review???????????
    They have efficiency numbers, I will not link every single one here, you can look at them yourself, but the 270k + is pretty much in line with any of the 9series of AMD except for maybe the x3d ones sometimes, it's not as bad as the 14th gen anymore.
    https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/tszGNfHKyaC3s8DwwdVvMC-1200-80.png.webp
    Reply