Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Review: AMD Needs to Respond
I think it would be interesting to include the 9900X when comparing it with Intel. The reason is that the motherboard + processor combo often has a similar price (at least in Europe), since there are relatively affordable AM5 motherboards. Best regards!
Or you can buy a flagship and have the option of upgrading to the next flagship without spending more later on another board and RAM kit.
Exactly. This is what makes the 270k the goat. You buy it instead of a 9950x / 9950x3d and you got so much money leftover you can buy a new mobo whenever you want to upgrade either for nova lake, zen 6 or zen 7. Going for an am5 locks you to zen 6 if you don't want to spend more money
AMD "sat on the laurels" with athlon64 because intel paid OEMs to not use AMD, this dirty trick left AMD to DIY market constituting few % of market share , and R&D budget ran dry. If not for consoles it would have killed AMD entirely.
As for this comparison 24 core 120W TDP(250?peak) vs 8 core 65W TDP(150?peak) is apples to oranges.
Judging by media point geekbench leaks they reach same score as srix point but running @2GHz. Of accurate this would mean 30% IPC uplift. AMD is not sitting on laurels, intel is finally trying to be competitive. Good, we need competition or endless +++refreshes with neglegible gains for massive price hikes will return.
Str8Shot
Posts: 410 +621
Indeed, the Kosherat way of doing business. Cheat, lie, steal, whatever it takes.
texasrattler
Posts: 1,660 +825
Probably cause thats what most people play on. 1440p has been on the rise for a while but 1080p still dominates and well for a while. 4K isnt a big jump from 1440p, 4K is mainly for editing or you just someone with $ to burn. Most dont have $ to burn, also why 1080p still the used resolution.
Lower resolutions show the difference in CPUs better. Also, it is the most common, 1080p.
A 270K locks you into a dead socket, AM5 does not.
Exactly, Intel was paying OEMs to exclusively use their CPU's, ie. Dell was one of their closest partners, Intel probably still has those partnerships especially in the laptop market where it can be more difficult to find an AMD option.
I think it's good Intel is competing, but when they're competing they always go back to playing dirty. Intel got caught cheating on geekbench with the "Binary Optimization Tool" boosting scores.
AMD needs to responds about what???
It barely match the 9700x... 1 years later while costing more...
Steve, WTH are you smoking? You guys went downhill so much that I barely care about these reviews anymore. WCCF is now your level of credibility.
It barely match the 9700x... 1 years later while costing more...
Steve, WTH are you smoking? You guys went downhill so much that I barely care about these reviews anymore. WCCF is now your level of credibility.
Yes but it's so much cheaper than the 9950 / 9950 x3d that with the leftover money you can buy a new mobo for any socket you want, novalake zen 6 or even zen 7. With am5 you are locked.
Higher resolution tests usually show the performance limitations of the installed graphics card than the processor. Testing at a lower baseline generally removes the graphics card from being the bottleneck and better exposes any performance discrepancies from processor and/or memory choice.
It's kind of a similar reason to why Techspot (and others) use the best performing processer and memory combo they currently have on hand to test even the lowest graphics cards, to isolate the performance of said graphics card from other variables.
amstech
Posts: 2,801 +1,963
AMD fanboys coping hard.
The reviewers comment about it being a dead socket is comedic gold. While its nice, thats not exactly a flex. For AM4, youre stuck with outdated and slower DDR4 and capped PCIe 4.0 (no support for PCIe 5.0) which limits performance in various apps/games.
The reviewers comment about it being a dead socket is comedic gold. While its nice, thats not exactly a flex. For AM4, youre stuck with outdated and slower DDR4 and capped PCIe 4.0 (no support for PCIe 5.0) which limits performance in various apps/games.
No one cares. A 265k/270k will be fine until atleast 2035. In 10 years it won't matter how long they built CPUs for it. Having a build that lasts 10 years on one CPU is smarter then having a build requiring 3 CPUs over the same time frame. Platform longevity arguments are a pathetic reach at best.
True, but nearly 25% of gamers (and climbing) are using 1440p and above. The results at 1440p and especially 4K show that there is virtually no difference for someone gaming at these resolutions and shuts down the argument to get X3D chips. Arrow Lake overclocks much better then anything AMD has and does AI rendering and creation MUCH better.
Last edited:
Endymio
Posts: 5,040 +4,753
Even assuming 100% load, 24x7, it's an extra 150w over AMD max, which for my utility costs me just $140/year. Under realistic use assumptions, it's probably closer to $25/year.
But you'll be doing twice the work vs 9700x, so even thay calculation is off. In fact the 9700x PC will consume more power to do the same work
Intel fanboys coping hard.
Sure a CPU would last for the next 10 years, but no enthusiast would actually commit to keeping a CPU for more than 2-3 years, have to chase that FOMO and benchmark scores to brag about having the latest platform on social media.
And the irony is Intel fans criticize having socket longevity because of the "latest features" which only matters if you're filling every x16 and M.2 slot, with the prices of hardware seems less likely for a majority to do or care about.
Last edited:
amstech
Posts: 2,801 +1,963
At 4k the CPU is insignificant because at that resolution it's GPU bound.
Why are you compairing 250K and 270K to top tier AMD chips with 16 p-cores that don't make sense for gamers and most consumers anyway? Intel chips have 6-8 p-cores like Ryzen 5 and 7
9800X3D/9850X3D is the worlds best gaming CPU, best value, best perf, less problems (single CCD, no scheduler or software needed for max performance, like dual CCD chips or Intel hybrid approach often leads to)
Arrow Lake is socket 1851, which is a dead socket. Nova Lake will be on socket 1954 and here Intel will try to copy the AMD formula with 4 generations on a single socket. They said this officially.
AM5 will get plenty of support still. Zen 6 for sure, maybe even Zen 7 as AMD might move this from AM6 to AM5 due to RAM crisis.
AMD did the same thing with Zen 3. Ryzen 5000 was supposed to be AM5 but they choose to make it AM4. Zen 7 can easily be AM5. Then AM4 and AM5 would have 4 generations each. Makes perfect sense really. No need to rush AM6 and DDR6 anytime soon. It will be a mess. DDR6 for consumers is 2030+ stuff.
DDR6 will be gobbled up by enterprise when it actually launches and for years after that.
Entire Socket 1954 starting with Nova Lake might be DDR5 only.
Last edited:
LordVile95
Posts: 418 +253
Because that’s how they make an argument, by refusing to acknowledge reality. These chips only really make sense for people who are hellbent on productivity but aren’t already on AM5 or a TR socket. Actually it’s only people who are on 1851 who get a good value becaure by the time you’ve loaded up with 64-128GB of DDR5 if you’re coming from 1700/AM4 or earlier that’s $600-1000 so a $200 saving on a chip isn’t really a large chunk of the budget anymore.
Yeah demanding consumers who actually needs massive produtivity performance is on TRX platform and uses Threadripper. Intel has no answer to Threadripper. AMD actually has a HEDT segment. Intel does not anymore.
Intel discontinued HEDT back in 2019. There was no point anymore (they milked people for many years, who wanted more than just 4 cores and more PCIe lanes, in the HEDT space)
Stuff like 16 core Ryzens is pretty much HEDT space or close. Not meant for regular consumers and especially not aimed at gamers.
AMDs EPYC platform have been causing Intel problems for years and years now. Xeon almost make no sense unless you rely on legacy apps or something. AMD beats Intel massively in performance per dollar. Most datacenters are building the foundation on AMD hardware today. Intel lowered their prices to get contracts. Just like you see them selling Raptor Lake and Arrow Lake on sale, lower than MSRP pricing in a matter of weeks, or in bundles.
While I don't hope for Intel to drop dead, as we need competition, you have to be blind to not see that AMD has been on a roll for several generations now, while Intel has been struggling hard, had many issues, fired alot of people and switched CEO multiple times.
Nova Lake and socket 1954 is the most important release for Intel in the consumer space for decades, probably their most important release ever. This is their chance for a full reset, making themself relevant again and with a chance of actually grabbing back the lead but we will see next year. Intels R&D funds are limited compared to AMDs now. That was never the case when Intel did comebacks before and Intel also had the edge when looking at fabrication process, also not the case anymore, as AMD uses top tier TSMC fabs.
Intel 18A/14A needs to be just as good as TSMC 3-2nm, for Intel to have a good chance of making a comeback if they don't want to rely on TSMC again (like with Arrow Lake etc)
Last edited:
Because that's how they perform.
The 9800x 3d / 9850x3d is far far away from being the best value cpu for games. It's actually pretty terrible. FPS / $ is horrible on these 2 chips.
No they don't, they are 6 and 8 p-core solutions with a bunch of slow e-cores that is hit or miss depending on workload.
9800X3D/9850X3D is the best gaming CPUs for people that needs this kind of performance and won't settle with less. Intel has nothing that even comes close when looking at CPU limited gaming, which high fps gamers mostly are - They are not value oriented chips. These are top tier gaming CPUs. 7800X3D fares better here. Even this 3+ year old chip, Intel can't beat in gaming. 7800X3D obliterates Intel in performance per watt as well.
The best is never cheap. Do you see RTX 5090 going for cheap and deliver good performance per dollar? Nah. True high-end stuff, market leading tech, is never cheap.
If you want performance per dollar and don't care about having the best, 9600X exist and beats everything else on performance per dollars if that is your thing. Personally I don't care and just wants the best or close.
AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D Review - The Best Just Got Better
The AMD Ryzen 9850X3D builds on the already excellent 9800X3D without trying to shake up the market. Instead, it focuses on refining what already works. AMD delivers modest improvements with smarter tuning, and the same cache magic that gamers love. Thanks to a reasonable price increase, this...
It is funny to see Intel fans now praise performance per dollar and application performance... Intel became the cheap alternative to AMD.
Last edited:
Yes they are? All reviews show MT numbers dwarfing their amd price competitors.
A lot of people don't wanna settle with low core count low MT chips like the 9800x 3d. If 8 cores suit your needs then go for it we are all happy for you but it doesn't work for all of us, 8 cores in 2026 feel very sluggish. Enthusiasts go for higher core counts cause they - you know - want to use their computers like computers, not like consoles. Had the 9800x 3d, handed it down to a friend within 1.5 months, it was horrible.
Bad comparison, the 5090 is the fastest. In everything. It doesn't lose to a 5060 in some workloads. The 9800x 3d does lose to entry level 200$ chips in lots of workloads.
It's funny to see amd fans ignoring MT performance which is what they were glazing about for years, right?
Not an Intel fan, when AMD had the lead in MT performance I was buying Ryzen (R5 1600 --> 2700x ---> 3700x) and considered Intel's 6700k and 7700k bad jokes. Now the 9800x 3d is in the same position as the 7700k was back in the day.
Similar threads
