1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,600 You might think the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is the best gaming CPU on the market, 2 00:00:04,600 --> 00:00:08,920 but as of today, that all does not change. 3 00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:12,040 But what if I told you that you could get 95% 4 00:00:12,040 --> 00:00:17,200 of its performance for 60% of the price? That is what Intel has bequeathed upon the land 5 00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:20,640 with their Ultra 7 270K Plus. 6 00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:23,760 God, who is naming these things? Anyways, take a look at this. 7 00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:28,080 In Cities Skylines 2, Intel's Ultra 7 270K Plus outpaces 8 00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:33,240 both of their previous flagships and is nipping at the heels of the 9800X3D. 9 00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:36,440 And what's even crazier is that the second chip that they announced, 10 00:00:36,440 --> 00:00:40,520 the Ultra 5 250K Plus, is also a flagship killer. 11 00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:45,960 It beats AMD's 9950X. That's a $650 CPU. 12 00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:50,680 Oh, right, and I haven't even mentioned price. The 270K and the 250K are dropping 13 00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:55,000 at a mere $300 and $200 respectively. 14 00:00:55,000 --> 00:01:00,360 Prices that are actually lower than the launch prices of the CPUs they are meant to replace. 15 00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:04,120 It's crazy, and moving into cyberpunk, the winning streak continues. 16 00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:10,280 Intel's 270K Plus is on the podium, while the 250K Plus outperforms the 4900K 17 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:16,280 and the Ryzen 9950X. It just sits slightly underneath the 265K and 1% lows, 18 00:01:16,280 --> 00:01:21,880 but it actually has an edge in average FPS. But AMD's chips also have an edge in average frame rates, 19 00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:26,000 which is why I am again emphasizing the importance of 1% lows. 20 00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,000 Those are what indicates a smoother gaming experience. 21 00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:33,000 So what's the catch with these chips? Are they power hungry or unstable? 22 00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:37,240 Is the price just too good to be true? It just might be. 23 00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:40,960 But what is good and also true is this in-depth review 24 00:01:40,960 --> 00:01:45,040 of Intel's newest CPUs and this segue to our sponsor. 25 00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:50,120 Continuing with our 1080p gaming results, in F124 we see AMD's whole lineup fairing pretty well, 26 00:01:50,120 --> 00:01:53,280 with the 9700X going above and beyond 27 00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:57,400 and overtaking the 270K Plus and the i9-14900K. 28 00:01:57,400 --> 00:02:00,680 The new 250K Plus trails the 9600X, 29 00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:04,280 although not by much. But Intel's dominance is seriously challenged 30 00:02:04,280 --> 00:02:10,080 in Counter-Strike 2, where their new high-end hotness only barely catches AMD's mid-range 9600X. 31 00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:15,080 At least Intel's new CPUs are outperforming their own team, except for the 4900K. 32 00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:19,200 When we take all of our gaming tests into consideration, it would seem that Intel has fulfilled 33 00:02:19,200 --> 00:02:23,640 their marketing claim. The Ultra7 270K Plus is the fastest gaming CPU 34 00:02:23,640 --> 00:02:28,320 Intel's ever built, even if it's not the fastest gaming CPU anyone's ever built. 35 00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:32,480 Landing just 5% shy of AMD's 9800X3D and 1% lows 36 00:02:32,480 --> 00:02:37,280 and 10% behind an average frame rate. But think of the price, the price! 37 00:02:37,280 --> 00:02:40,560 And the 250K is also an excellent value. 38 00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:44,280 It beats the 9600X by 5% to 10% or more, 39 00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:48,480 depending on the game, whilst demanding a very small price premium. 40 00:02:48,480 --> 00:02:52,760 But before you scream shill, let's address the elephant in the room and talk about why we didn't compare 41 00:02:52,760 --> 00:02:55,840 these new Intel chips to AMD's 9850X3D. 42 00:02:55,840 --> 00:03:01,560 They're more recent, fastest gaming CPU. Unfortunately, we can't test every CPU on the market, 43 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:05,840 so we opted to represent the 9800X3D instead of the 9850X3D, 44 00:03:05,840 --> 00:03:11,000 because more of you guys are currently running it. And it's also very close in performance 45 00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:14,280 to the 9850X3D. And if we're being entirely honest, 46 00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:18,080 we did not expect Intel to compete at the very top of these performance charts. 47 00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:21,080 You got me, Intel. But if you are looking for even more data, 48 00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:25,640 keep an eye on lttlabs.com, where we are always adding new tests to compare. 49 00:03:25,640 --> 00:03:29,360 So, what changes under the hood did Intel make to refresh their Aero Lake CPUs 50 00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:34,280 and get these impressive results? Well, first off, they bomped up the clock's 51 00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:38,920 all-core boost on the P&E cores, with the new processor source. 52 00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:44,960 Sorry, they also tweaked uncore frequencies, uncore meaning everything that's not the cores, 53 00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:48,400 and they've improved die-to-die performance and IO frequency, 54 00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,760 meaning faster communication to the parts within the CPU 55 00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:56,280 and to the other components in your system, which allowed them to support higher-speed memory. 56 00:03:56,280 --> 00:04:01,400 Oh, right, and there's just plain more CPU. Both of these new chips bring in extra four e-cores 57 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:07,520 and some bonus shared cache along for the ride, which makes the naming of these CPUs really confusing. 58 00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:12,680 Why does the Ultra7 270K Plus have the same number of cores as the Ultra9 285K? 59 00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:16,600 And why is it performing better? Shouldn't the higher-number CPU be better? 60 00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:20,360 I mean, at least the 250K Plus actually has fewer cores than the 265K, 61 00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:23,400 so something makes sense there, but even there, in terms of performance, 62 00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:28,800 the 250K Plus is looking more like a replacement for the 265K rather than the 245K. 63 00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:32,080 So what are they thinking with these names? 64 00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:36,480 It's tough to say, but the main thing Intel wants you to focus on is the Plus. 65 00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:42,840 Apparently, this new convention is going to indicate that it's for enthusiasts until whatever you're paying 66 00:04:42,840 --> 00:04:47,920 your marketing division, it is too much. And whatever you're paying your engineers, it ain't enough. 67 00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:51,200 Onto productivity. Intel made some big claims in their announcement 68 00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:56,920 about multi-core performance, saying that the 250K Plus has a 103% lead 69 00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:00,600 over the 9600X. Yeah, let's see if that's true. 70 00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:04,600 Jesus Christ! In Blender, the 250K Plus just pummels 71 00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:11,080 AMD's price competitors, and at the high end, the 270K Plus is neck and neck with the 9950X. 72 00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:14,220 In Cinebench, well, bow to your new multi-core king 73 00:05:14,220 --> 00:05:18,860 as the 270K Plus tops the charts with his brother, Duke 250K Plus, 74 00:05:18,860 --> 00:05:22,020 outperforming his counterparts. On the other hand, in single-core performance, 75 00:05:22,020 --> 00:05:25,300 the higher boost on the 285K and 265K 76 00:05:25,300 --> 00:05:29,140 keep them positioned above their plus-named heirs. If you're looking to decompress, 77 00:05:29,140 --> 00:05:32,460 you can relax knowing that these new chips also perform well in 7-Zip, 78 00:05:32,460 --> 00:05:36,580 even if they are a step below royalty. But in pretty much every workload, 79 00:05:36,580 --> 00:05:42,380 the Plus CPUs are either fighting for the top spot or absolutely dominating in price to performance. 80 00:05:42,380 --> 00:05:46,580 Except in Photoshop, where there is a clear platform preference for AMD, but outside of that, 81 00:05:46,580 --> 00:05:51,060 Intel has stolen back the productivity crowd, especially considering price to performance. 82 00:05:51,060 --> 00:05:55,100 So don't ignore them if you're doing any sort of productivity work in addition to your gaming. 83 00:05:55,100 --> 00:06:01,540 Let's say this in a way Twitch streamers can understand. Intel is value-maxing and absolutely price-mogging AMD. 84 00:06:01,540 --> 00:06:05,500 Well, that's crazy. After several generations of power-hungry CPUs, 85 00:06:05,500 --> 00:06:10,860 Intel slayed the power efficiency dragon with Aero Lake, but CPU refreshes often result 86 00:06:10,900 --> 00:06:14,820 in power consumption increases. So was that dragon really a hydra? 87 00:06:14,820 --> 00:06:20,280 Well, in gaming, power usage on the 250K plus and 270K plus has increased by 10% or more 88 00:06:20,280 --> 00:06:24,260 compared to their non-plus brethren. But on the whole, have a lower average 89 00:06:24,260 --> 00:06:28,020 and a max power consumption than AMD's chips in F124. 90 00:06:28,020 --> 00:06:31,940 And Intel's doing this while being pretty competitive in performance too. 91 00:06:31,940 --> 00:06:36,020 In Cinebench, we can see that Intel is still happy to let their chips let loose with power 92 00:06:36,020 --> 00:06:40,100 to really maximize performance, even if it comes at the cost of efficiency. 93 00:06:40,100 --> 00:06:45,220 But still, Intel might make up the difference by having quite good idle power draw, 94 00:06:45,220 --> 00:06:49,360 especially compared to AMD. And this well-managed power curve on the new chips 95 00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:53,740 translates to a well-managed thermals on our Arctic Liquid Freezer III 360 millimeter 96 00:06:53,740 --> 00:06:58,920 clad test benches. And even when drawing full power, they perform well under their rated max temp. 97 00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:02,340 Remember, the TJ Maxx for these CPUs is 105 degrees 98 00:07:02,340 --> 00:07:06,100 compared to AMD's 95. And the crazy thing is that if you really want 99 00:07:06,100 --> 00:07:09,460 to push your chip, or if you're just like heinously thermally constrained, 100 00:07:09,500 --> 00:07:14,980 Intel will let you set your temperature budget to 115 degrees Celsius and still honor the warranty. 101 00:07:16,060 --> 00:07:19,980 That's awesome. Also kind of scary. It sounds great so far, yeah, 102 00:07:19,980 --> 00:07:23,140 but there's still more to talk about. Intel has a few tricks up their sleeves 103 00:07:23,140 --> 00:07:26,380 and it's in the form of software enhancements. 104 00:07:27,540 --> 00:07:31,820 Yeah, we love that. The Intel Binary Optimization Tool, or IBOT, 105 00:07:31,820 --> 00:07:36,220 is part of their application optimizer software and Intel considers this to be a core part 106 00:07:36,220 --> 00:07:40,140 of their long-term performance strategy. Basically what it does is analyze the functions 107 00:07:40,140 --> 00:07:45,460 being called by an application and redirects the call to a function that's better optimized for Intel hardware. 108 00:07:45,460 --> 00:07:49,780 Intel wants to make it very clear that they're not changing the work that's being done or skipping any steps, 109 00:07:49,780 --> 00:07:53,500 but it's kind of like switching from using a kit of different screwdrivers to a convenient 110 00:07:53,500 --> 00:07:58,300 multi-bit screwdriver from lttstore.com. It does all the same work, just more efficiently 111 00:07:58,300 --> 00:08:02,300 and sexier. Intel claims improvements as high as 20% 112 00:08:02,300 --> 00:08:07,180 depending on the game when you're using IBOT, but we didn't see anything like that in our testing. 113 00:08:07,180 --> 00:08:12,660 There's a clear uplift when compared against the baseline condition and Intel's current version of application optimization, 114 00:08:12,660 --> 00:08:16,060 but it's nothing to write home about. For safety, we checked to see if IBOT 115 00:08:16,060 --> 00:08:20,340 was increasing power consumption. It doesn't seem to, outside of maybe the added power 116 00:08:20,340 --> 00:08:25,660 consumption of running your games that little bit faster. Performance is enhanced, but it's not by a lot 117 00:08:25,660 --> 00:08:28,740 and IBOT can be a nuisance to enable in their utility. 118 00:08:28,740 --> 00:08:33,100 And also like, it all depends if those programs that you use are being optimized, so who knows? 119 00:08:33,100 --> 00:08:37,740 It could be a really big deal or just another unused setting in your driver software. 120 00:08:37,740 --> 00:08:42,660 Oh, and bad news for all 349 of you who bought this generation of Intel CPUs. 121 00:08:42,660 --> 00:08:47,540 Intel is making no promises on bringing these optimizations to their non-plus CPUs. 122 00:08:47,540 --> 00:08:51,140 Bummer. This is some pretty new stuff, so let us know in the comments if you'd like to see 123 00:08:51,140 --> 00:08:56,540 a more in-depth look at IBOT in an upcoming video. Just like Intel though, no promises. 124 00:08:56,540 --> 00:08:59,980 Alrighty, let's talk about pricing. It's incredible, assuming that this pricing 125 00:08:59,980 --> 00:09:05,340 will exist in the real world and that Intel isn't just taking a patron AMD's 9070 XT playbook. 126 00:09:05,340 --> 00:09:09,620 599, XT 599, fake price, and hot. 127 00:09:11,620 --> 00:09:18,380 My gut says that this pricing is too good to be true, but if it isn't, AMD will need to respond. 128 00:09:18,380 --> 00:09:22,740 Whether that's by raising the performance bar with a generational refresh that actually does something, 129 00:09:22,740 --> 00:09:27,140 looking at you the 9850X3D, or by slashing retail pricing of their current lineup, 130 00:09:27,140 --> 00:09:30,180 or both. I just hope that these great prices and products 131 00:09:30,180 --> 00:09:34,100 from Intel are not just here to score headlines in a time where no one can afford 132 00:09:34,100 --> 00:09:37,580 to build a computer anyways. It's just so performative. 133 00:09:37,580 --> 00:09:41,380 By the way, ladies, I've been getting really into Machalates and Claro. 134 00:09:41,380 --> 00:09:44,820 What a talent. And I listen to, I know why the cagebird sings on Blinkist 135 00:09:44,820 --> 00:09:50,060 because you know, I'm an ally. And also, I'm segueing to our sponsor. 136 00:09:50,060 --> 00:09:53,100 Thanks for watching this video. Check out our review of the 9850X3D 137 00:09:53,100 --> 00:09:55,900 to see more about the bestest CPUs in the game.