OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark multi-core score:68521N. of physical cores:24CPU boost clock speed:5.5 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):125 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Review: Compare 168 technical specifications, 10 expert and video reviews and 26 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus
8.6/10

Overall score

Score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

40%

8.6

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

15%

9.1

List score

10%

8.2

Sentiment score

10%

9.2

User score

★Better than 99% of processors
8.6

Value for money

Value for money
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

70%

8.6

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

★Better than 98%
8.6

Technical score

Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

60%

9.1

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

★Better than 95%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 84% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (10)
4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
▲Better than 84%
9.2

User score

User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 70% of models

80%

9.4

Rating

20%

8.6

Popularity

▲Better than 70%
9.1

List score

List score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (26)
List score: in 26 of 75 lists (35%)
★Better than 99%
  • intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus
intel-core-ultra-7-270k-plus
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #9 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

Technical score
Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components:

60%

9.1

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

8.6
Reviews score
8.2
User score
9.2
List score
9.1
Value for money
Value for money
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

8.6

Overall score

30%

8.7

Price

8.6
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, W880, Q870, H810
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
24
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 24 CPU cores, which is more than 96.3% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
CPU threads
24
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.5 GHz which is higher than that of 97% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.7 GHz & 16x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.7 GHz & 16x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
68,521
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 68,521 in PassMark, which is higher than 98.5% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
36 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 92.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
L2 cache
40 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 40 MB which is larger than that of 99% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 90.6% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-7200 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Graphics
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 72.1% of processors and equal to 0.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
125 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 125 W which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
250 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 250 W which is higher than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more
What reviewers say

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.97x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (68,521 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    68,521 vs 11,469
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 98.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (5,073 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    5,073 vs 2,558
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 25% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 13.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (40 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    40 MB vs 3 MB
  • 22.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 84% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    8.2 vs 6.7
  • 16.7% higher list score
    List score
    9.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (26)
    List score: in 26 of 75 lists (35%)
    9.1 vs 7.8
  • 26.0% higher user score
    User score
    9.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 70% of models

    80%

    9.4

    Rating

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    9.2 vs 7.3
  • 17.9% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has better value for money than the average processor (8.64 vs 7.3).
    8.64 vs 7.33
  • 13.9% higher sentiment score
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
    LGA1851 vs FP5
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 5.97x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (68,521 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    68,521 vs 11,469
  • 18 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (24 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    24 vs 6
  • 98.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (5,073 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    5,073 vs 2,558
  • 25% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.7 GHz & 16x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.7 GHz & 16x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 13.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (40 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    40 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 4x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    36 MB vs 9 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 3.6x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 + 4 vs 3).
    5.0 + 4.0 vs 3.0
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.46x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    115.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2.25x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7200 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    7,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 3.91x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (250 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    250 W vs 64 W
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-7200 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-7,200 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 3.91x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (250 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    250 W vs 64 W
  • 2.78x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 2.78x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (125 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    125 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
The Don Tech
≈ estimated
06/08/2026
Stock performance test · creator workloads and 1440p gaming
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is stable, fast and cool at stock settings, with no BIOS tuning needed for creator work.
8.0
TKsTechTalk
≈ estimated
14/07/2026
Full build · benchmark and thermal tests · fan noise test
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a 250 W chip that this cooler handles well, though it draws more power than AMD rivals.
9.0
Chris Mizo
✓ explicit
19/04/2026
Hands-on review · gaming, productivity and thermal tests
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a powerful, well-rounded CPU for gaming and productivity, though it needs good cooling and a solid platform.
9.5
Designs By IFR
≈ estimated
12/04/2026
Build video · benchmarks in a custom water-cooled PC
Verdict
Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is good value for new builds, with strong productivity and gaming performance for the price.
7.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
23/03/2026
Benchmark review · Cinebench, power and gaming tests
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is competent and fast for its price, but it arrives late in the platform's life.
Overview video
Shop video
Not graded

What reviewers agree on

Based on 4 · 6

Fast, stable and good value for applications; gaming splits opinion, and higher power draw is the main complaint.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
digit.in
≈ estimated
12/04/2026
Lab test · Desktop processor
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a competitive productivity chip with 24 cores, but it does not beat AMD's best X3D chips in every game.
7.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
23/03/2026
Benchmark review · Gaming and apps
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus roughly matches the Core i9-14900K in games and beats the 285K in applications, but it runs hot and draws more power in games.
8.0
muycomputer.com
≈ estimated
23/03/2026
Benchmark review · Desktop processor
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a strong all-round desktop chip that edges past the Core Ultra 9 285K, but Ryzen X3D chips still lead in games.
9.0
es.gamegpu.com
≈ estimated
30/04/2026
Lab review · Arrow Lake desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is the top LGA1851 chip with 24 cores, but it needs Windows 11 25H2 or later.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

  • 24 cores and 24 threads keep many heavy programs running together.
  • A 5.5 GHz boost clock makes single tasks feel quick.
  • Memory up to 7200 MHz with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth keeps data flowing.
  • 40 MB of L2 cache and 36 MB of L3 cache keep data close to the cores.
  • The unlocked multiplier lets you tune the clock speed yourself.
  • PCIe 5.0 with 24 lanes suits fast storage and graphics cards.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus

  • Boost power reaches 250 W, so the power supply has to be strong.
  • No cooler is included, so you have to buy a strong one.
  • The die is 243 mm², and large dies are harder to keep cool.
  • It has no multithreading, so each core runs one thread at a time.
  • It can reach 105 °C under heavy load, which is its upper limit.

Verdict

A PassMark single-core score of 5073 and 24 cores make the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus a strong pick for heavy multitasking. Boost reaches 5.5 GHz, and the chip runs 24 threads at once. Eight performance cores do the heavy lifting. The 40 MB of L2 cache and 36 MB of L3 cache help it move data quickly. Memory runs up to 7200 MHz with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and memory overclocking is available too. It is unlocked, so you can tune the chip yourself. Integrated graphics with 64 execution units is enough for everyday desktop use. The trade-off is heat: boost power reaches 250 W, and the die measures 243 mm². It suits a serious builder who runs heavy work and is ready for a big cooler.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and other processors

No results found