Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs. Core Ultra 9 285K
Two CPUs. One bench. Same board, same GPU, same memory, same cooling.
Core Ultra 7 270K Plus · CPU Mark
76,408
WINNER · ~$265
Core Ultra 9 285K · CPU Mark
76,026
Flagship · ~$545
A 382-point win for the cheaper chip on the pure processor benchmark. CPU Mark does not touch storage, so this gap is silicon, not setup.
We dropped two CPUs into the same workstation, one after the other, and ran them through PassMark PerformanceTest. The only thing that changed was the chip. The result: the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, a part we source for roughly $265, posted a higher CPU Mark than the Core Ultra 9 285K, Intel's flagship that runs north of $545.
The 270K Plus is the newer Arrow Lake Refresh stepping, with a faster internal fabric and a 100 MHz edge on its E-cores. On this bench, those advantages put a value chip ahead of the flagship it was built to undercut.
The 285K won the overall PassMark system rating (23,922 vs 23,342). It did not win it on the processor. The two runs used different boot drives: the 285K ran on a Samsung 9100 Pro, the 270K Plus on a Crucial T705. PassMark folds disk speed into the system rating, and that single difference accounts for almost the entire gap. Strip storage out and the 270K Plus is the stronger CPU. We show you both numbers so you can see exactly where the difference comes from.
Identical platform across both runs: ROG Maximus Z890 Apex, GeForce RTX 4090, CUDIMM DDR5-5800, Windows 11 Enterprise LTSC. Green marks the winner of each line.
| Benchmark | 270K Plus | 285K |
|---|---|---|
| CPU Mark | 76,408 | 76,026 |
| Integer Math (MOps/s) | 190,615 | 189,483 |
| Floating Point (MOps/s) | 249,600 | 247,661 |
| Data Compression (KB/s) | 896,892 | 880,366 |
| Single Thread (MOps/s) | 5,354 | 5,458 |
| Memory Mark | 5,317 | 5,426 |
| Disk Mark * | 94,490 | 100,728 |
| 2D Graphics | 2,246 | 2,369 |
| 3D Graphics | 51,169 | 52,779 |
| Overall System Rating | 23,342 | 23,922 |
* Disk Mark reflects the boot SSD, not the CPU. Different drives across the two runs (T705 vs 9100 Pro) drive the overall-rating gap. See disclosure above.
Read it line by line and the pattern is clear: the 270K Plus sweeps the compute-heavy tests, integer, floating point, and compression, while the 285K takes single-thread, memory, and the graphics and disk lines that lean on its run's configuration. On the work a processor actually does, the value chip leads.
You do not need the flagship to get flagship compute. The 270K Plus delivers the same 24-core configuration, the same cache, and on this bench, more processor throughput, for a few hundred dollars less. Put that money where it moves real numbers: storage, memory, cooling.
The 285K holds a slim single-thread lead from its higher boost ceiling. It is the right call if you specifically need that top clock or Thermal Velocity Boost. For balanced productivity, simulation, rendering, and compile work, the 270K Plus is the smarter chip.
Neither is the outright gaming FPS champion. For pure gaming, an AMD X3D part still leads. These chips are the pick when you want heavy multi-threaded muscle and strong gaming in one build. We would rather tell you that up front than sell you a number that does not hold.
We do not ask you to take our word for it. Both runs are public on PassMark's baseline database. Click through and check them.
270K Plus
BL# 3505740
June 3, 2026 · View on PassMark →
285K
BL# 3533269
June 18, 2026 · View on PassMark →
Every build we sell is benched on SAGE, our in-house Threadripper PRO workstation and test bench. Real hardware, real runs, real baseline IDs you can check. Transparent benchmarking is not a marketing line for us. It is the product.
Locally built, transparently benchmarked, and always 'Cloud Free.'