Intel Drastically Reduces Prices: Core Ultra 270K Plus and 250K Plus Review

[00:01] it came to CPUs for gamers and content creators . But now they are here, the new Intel Core Ultra 200S Plus CPUs in the form of the Intel Core Ultra 720 K+ and the Intel Core Ultra 250 K+. I was able to extensively test both CPUs beforehand and, to be honest, I

[00:17] 'm quite surprised in a positive way. In features and specifications we can expect, how the CPUs perform in benchmarks

[00:29] focusing on content creation, and what classification and what classification to expect from a price-performance perspective.

[00:41] Ultra 200S Plus, because because with the Core Ultra 7 270 K+ we now get 8 performance cores and 16 efficiency cores; in itself, with a total of 24 cores, we have

[00:54] exactly the same configuration as with a Core Ultra A9 285K. But when you also look at the price, it gets even more interesting. According to Geizheit, the Core Ultra 285K currently costs around €500 and the Core Ultra 270 K plus is expected to be released

[01:10] for around US$299 . Even if the price then comes to maybe €350 here, that's still quite a significant price drop. But the situation is no different with the Core Ultra 250 Plus, which now has a

[01:24] total of 18 cores instead of 14 cores like its predecessor. And in terms of performance data, the 250K+ is quite close to a Core Ultra 265K. There are moderate improvements in clock speeds . The All-Core Boost on the

[01:39] . The All-Core Boost on the 270K is 5.4 GHz, which is 100 MHz higher than the 265K. Although the 250K Plus 250K Plus is an upgrade over the 245K in many areas, its All-

[01:53] Core Boost is 100 MHz lower. But we also have more cores and a higher maximum boost clock. The biggest hardware innovation is official RAM support. Both Plus CPUs now support DDR5 7200

[02:08] now support DDR5 7200 out of the box. The 245K and 285K officially only support up to DDA 56400. KUDM support is a brand new addition . These are special modules with an integrated clock driver that

[02:22] provide greater stability at high tag rates. With QDIMS, DDR5 7200 is significantly easier to achieve than with standard DMS. And in addition, Warranty OC Support will be increased up to DDR58000. This basically just means that the CPUs do

[02:38] not lose their warranty if the RAM is overclocked to DDR58000 using XMP . But those were only the changes in the specifications. What I actually find much more exciting are the changes in the

[02:50] software or the drivers. Intel is now shipping the so-called Intel Platform Performance Package, also known as IPPP. Yes. P. Okay, let's leave it at that. This is

[03:05] an all-in-one installer that sets up Apo. Apo, APO Apo, that means first Red. Apo stands for Application, Performance Optimization and is fundamentally about

[03:18] intelligently distributing threads across performance and efficiency cores, completely independent of the specific program. Long story short. IPPP is intended to ensure that the distribution of P and ECORE can now be

[03:31] used optimally. In addition, the Binary Optimization Tool is also offered. However, this is completely optional and can be activated. The Binary Optimization Tool analyzes the

[03:44] games and then optimizes it for the CPU architecture. According to Intel, this should result in up to 20% more FPS in games. But

[03:56] always remain somewhat reserved when it comes to such statements, because the past has shown that marketing can sometimes be very creative . Therefore, later in the video we will also look at benchmarks that I myself performed on my system. In terms

[04:10] of platform alone, Intel remains on on the LGA 1851 socket with the Z890 chipset for the Core Ultra 200S Plus CPUs. So no new motherboard, just new CPUs. Here, only the latest BI needs to be

[04:24] existing system, there are also updates for Apo IPPPP to work correctly . On paper, Intel is now delivering CPUs that, in terms of performance, are more on par with their larger predecessors, but

[04:39] are significantly more attractive in terms of price. But whether that's also true in terms of actual performance benchmarks shortly. Let's briefly discuss my test system. All I tested the new CPUs and also the predecessors are linked below the

[04:53] video. In addition, I also tested AMD CPUs against it. once the AMD Ryzen 9800X3D and once the AMD Ryzen 9950X. And I have also linked the test system used for these tests below the video

[05:07] admit that I did not have all possible CPUs available, so the selection of test CPUs may be somewhat smaller. Otherwise, I would have liked to provide more results, but now let's finally

[05:20] . Intel clearly dominates the single-core test. The 270 K+ is in first place with 145 points. The 9950X comes in third place with 136 points, behind the

[05:34] 250 K+ with 139 points. What I find interesting, however, is that the 9800 X3D, with 134 points, is on par with the cheaper 245K. For single- runs on one core, the new Intel CPUs have the edge here. first.

[05:51] But it becomes even clearer with multicore. The 270 K+ takes clearer with multicore. The 270 K+ takes the lead with 2451 points. Approximately 15% ahead of the 9950X at 2119 points. This is

[06:05] remarkable because the 9950X is more than twice as expensive. The 250K Plus twice as expensive. The 250K Plus falls behind the 9950X with 1871 points . Anything else would have really surprised me. The 9800 X3D

[06:21] brings up the rear with 1355 points , which shows that the 3DV Cash design is not necessarily intended for multiread workloads. But let's move on to Cinnebch 2026, and there the world looks completely different. Cineb

[06:35] 2024 is based on an older renderer that largely balances the strengths of both architectures . In contrast, Cinebench 2026 makes extensive use of extended instruction sets, in particular AVX 512 VNNI, i.e., AI-accelerated

[06:51] vector operations. And that's precisely where AMD Sen 5 architecture has a structural advantage. The Sen 5 core can process twice as many of these instructions per clock cycle as Intel's Arolay core. That's simply a difference in

[07:05] architecture. However, this multicore comparison, the number of cores again becomes the dominant factor. And that's exactly what we see here. The 9800 X3D jumps to first place with 748 points, just

[07:21] jumps to first place with 748 points, just ahead of the 9950X with 738 points. The 270k Plus falls back to 598 points, which is about 20% less than the 9800X3D. Anyone using software that relies heavily on AVX512

[07:37] , such as certain AI tools or scientific applications, should multicore comparison, Intel regains the lead. the lead. The 270K Plus wins with 9897

[07:51] The 270K Plus wins with 9897 points. The 9950X follows with 8737 points, which is a lead of around 13%. This is where the four additional E-Cors of the 270K Plus really pay off . The 250K Plus falls

[08:06] behind the 9950X once again. The same picture emerges as in CineBench 2024, and the 9800X3D lands in last place with 5647 points. But let 's start with the tools that are

[08:20] really important for content creators . In Adobe Premiere Pro, all five compared CPUs perform very closely together, with a maximum difference of just 6%. The 9950X leads with 138,549

[08:35] points, just ahead of the 270 plus with 135,415. Even the cheaper 245K achieves 130,961 points, only 5.5% less than the most expensive CPU in the test. For most

[08:50] Premiere workflows, it simply makes no noticeable difference which of these CPUs you use. It really depends on the graphics card used, and in all the tests here, it was the same: the NVIDIA

[09:03] same: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti. However, AMD really shines in Photoshop, as the 9950X leads with 13289 9950X leads with 13289 points. The 9800X3D follows with 12941

[09:17] points, the 270 K+ falls back to 3rd place with 11118 points, and that is a difference of around 16% compared to the 9950X. Photoshop benefits greatly from fast single-thread IPCs and AMD's

[09:32] mainly use Photoshop, you might be better off with an AMD system . Things get really interesting with Adobe After Effects, because the 250 K+ beats the 270 K+ here with 15213 points, and is just

[09:48] behind the 9950X with 15616 points. A deficit of almost 2.6%. The 270 K plus follows

[10:00] closely behind with 1560 points. Those who work a lot with Adobe After Effects can get a really good CPU with the 250 K, which offers the same performance as the which offers the same performance as the AMD Ryzen 9950X, but at

[10:13] half the price. But in Da Vinci Resolve, AMD dominates again. The 9950X gains around 9% with 17097 points, ahead of the 250k Plus with

[10:26] 158183 points. And once again, the same pattern emerges as with After Effects. The 250k Plus is slightly ahead of the 270 The 250k Plus is slightly ahead of the 270 K+. The 9800X3D brings up

[10:40] the rear with 1415 points. Sure, this chip isn't designed for creator workloads, but rather for gaming. In Blender, we then see a real head-to-head race between the 270 K and the 9950x.

[10:54] For Monster, for example, the difference is 285.78 to 279.59, to 279.59, so less than 2.2%. Junkshop was practically identical, and Classroom was also the

[11:08] same. This means that the 270 Kält can easily compete with a CPU costing over €400 in 3D rendering, at a significantly costing over €400 in 3D rendering, at a significantly lower price. And the 250 K+ falls

[11:21] significantly behind in all three scenes, by around 25 to 27% behind the 270 K+, which shows that the core count is also crucial in Blender. And then there's also the matter of simply encoding videos. Here, the

[11:36] 270 K and the 9950X are again practically identical at 143 seconds. So, a difference of just 1.3%. In the test, I had a

[11:49] 5-minute 4K60 HEVC clip rendered into 1080p30 using X265, i.e., CPU rendering in the HEVC codec. The 250K+ takes significantly longer at 180 seconds,

[12:03] and the 9800X3D takes 228.77 seconds, the same amount of time as the considerably cheaper 245K. But let's also take another look at the gaming benchmarks . To be perfectly clear,

[12:17] two games were tested simply to illustrate where things are headed. My colleagues here on YouTube, who specialize in gaming, benchmarks. I simply wanted to focus on content creation.

[12:30] For both games, I enabled Binary Optimization in 1080p without additional tools like Nvidia DLSS for edge correction and obtained the following results. In Cyberpunk 2077, the 270K plus takes the lead with

[12:45] 214.91 FPS, just ahead of the 9950X with 213.18 FPS. The 9800X3D, which normally uses the Gamingtron , achieves 209.73 FPS, the same as the 250 K plus.

[13:02] With the selected settings in Cyberpunk 2077, the advantage of 3D VCash is less pronounced. The title simply benefits more from Intel's Binary Optimization. It is important to note that these values ​​only apply to Intel devices with

[13:16] fully enabled software optimization. Without APO and Binary Optimization, the image looks different . In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the 9800 X3D shows why it is the king of

[13:29] gaming CPUs. With 358 FPS, it leaves everyone else behind. 13.7% ahead of the 270 K with 315 FPS, even though the latter is 270 K with 315 FPS, even though the latter is running with Binary Opto. 3D design, like Cash

[13:43] Design, is simply unbeatable for cash-sensitive titles like Shadow of the Tomb Raider . The 9950X follows in third place with 302 FPS, while the 250k follows in third place with 302 FPS, while the 250k Plus with 267 FPS and the 245K with 245

[13:58] FPS form the lower end. Let's get to the question that ultimately always matters: for whom is what worthwhile, and at what price? The Core Ultra 720K Plus, at around $299, is the CPU that surprised me the most. Especially in

[14:13] multiread workloads, where I would have expected the 9950X to come out on top, the 270 K+ beats the 9950X more than once and costs considerably less. So, anyone who primarily relies on creator

[14:26] tools will get a very powerful CPU with the 270K plus. However, it must be clearly noted that anyone who only gain a real advantage with the 270K plus through Binary Obt . Without this

[14:42] optimization, the 9800 X3D is definitely ahead, and even with Binary OBT it depends on the specific game. From a gaming perspective, I would definitely still go with AMD. For budget systems, the Core Ultra

[14:55] 5250 K plus can be very exciting, even if one assumes a price of around €200 . However, what I find much more important is that AMD has confirmed that no platform change is planned for new CPUs on the AM platform until at least 2027

[15:10] . Sen 6 and Sen 7 are also expected to be released for AM 5. But what about Intel's Socket 1851 ? Yes, I can imagine that this platform could be replaced more quickly , which would then

[15:23] mean buying a new motherboard, and that's definitely something to that's definitely something to keep in mind. My conclusion: The 270K delivers what Intel promised with Plus. More cores, better creator performance

[15:35] and a competitive price. However, there are better CPUs for pure gaming builds . However, for those who primarily use their PC with creative tools, the 270 K+ and also the 250 K+ may be of interest. But what do

[15:51] sure to write your opinion in the comments and then I'll see you in the the comments and then I'll see you in the next video.