1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,040
You might think the Ryzen 79850X3D is the best gaming CPU on the market,

2
00:00:04,560 --> 00:00:10,520
but as of today, that all does not

3
00:00:08,040 --> 00:00:15,680
change. But, what if I told you that you could get 95% of its performance for 60%

4
00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:20,640
of the price? That is what Intel has bequeathed upon the land with their

5
00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:22,160
Ultra 7 270K Plus.

6
00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:27,320
God, who is naming these things? Anyways, take a look at this. In Cities:

7
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:29,400
Skylines II, Intel's Ultra 7 270K Plus

8
00:00:27,320 --> 00:00:35,000
outpaces both of their previous flagships and is nipping at the heels of

9
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:35,960
the 9800X3D. And what's even crazier is

10
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:41,240
that the second chip that they announced, the Ultra 5 250K Plus, is

11
00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:47,160
also a flagship killer. It beats AMD's 9950X. That's a $650

12
00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:53,960
CPU. Oh, right, and I haven't even mentioned price. The 270K and the 250K

13
00:00:50,040 --> 00:00:56,040
are dropping at a mere $300 and $200

14
00:00:53,960 --> 00:01:01,080
respectively. Prices that are actually lower than the launch prices of the CPUs

15
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:05,720
they are meant to replace. It's crazy. And moving into Cyberpunk, the winning

16
00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:10,200
streak continues. Intel's 270K Plus is on the podium, while the 250K Plus

17
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:16,160
outperforms the 14900K and the Ryzen 9950X. It just sits

18
00:01:13,640 --> 00:01:20,840
slightly underneath the 265K in 1% lows, but it actually has an edge in average

19
00:01:17,960 --> 00:01:24,640
FPS. But, AMD's chips also have an edge in average frame rates, which is why I

20
00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:29,480
am again emphasizing the importance of 1% lows. Those are what indicates a

21
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:33,480
smoother gaming experience. So, what's the catch with these chips? Are they

22
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:37,200
power hungry or unstable? Is the price just too good to be true? It just might

23
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:42,640
be. But, what is good and also true is this

24
00:01:40,080 --> 00:01:47,360
in-depth review of Intel's newest CPUs and [music] the segue to our sponsor.

25
00:01:45,960 --> 00:01:51,080
Hi. What's up? Sorry, this is all very new

26
00:01:49,560 --> 00:01:55,400
to me. I've never speed dated before. What's your name?

27
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:59,320
Vessi Weekend Neo. Beautiful name. Where are you from?

28
00:01:57,280 --> 00:02:04,880
Oh, the link in the description? I've always wanted to go there. Tell me more.

29
00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:10,080
Continuing with our 1080p gaming results in F1 24, we see AMD's whole lineup

30
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:15,760
faring pretty well with the 9700X going above and beyond and overtaking

31
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:18,861
the 270K plus and the i9 14900K. The new

32
00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:20,880
250K plus trails the 9600X, although

33
00:02:18,861 --> 00:02:24,000
[music] not by much. But Intel's dominance is seriously challenged in

34
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:28,760
Counter-Strike 2, where their new high-end hotness only barely catches

35
00:02:25,959 --> 00:02:33,240
AMD's mid-range 9600X. At least Intel's new CPUs are outperforming their own

36
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,840
team, except for the 14900K.

37
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:40,440
When we take all of our gaming tests into consideration, it would seem that Intel has fulfilled their marketing

38
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:44,880
claim. The Ultra 7 270K plus is the fastest gaming CPU Intel's ever built,

39
00:02:42,920 --> 00:02:50,560
even if it's not the fastest gaming CPU anyone's ever built, landing [music]

40
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:53,000
just 5% shy of AMD's 9800X3D in 1% lows

41
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:58,680
and 10% behind in average frame rate. But think of the price, the the price.

42
00:02:55,400 --> 00:03:02,360
And the 250K is also an excellent value.

43
00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:04,239
It beats the 9600X by 5 to 10% or more,

44
00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:08,480
depending on the game, whilst demanding a very small price premium. But before

45
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:13,920
you scream shill, let's address the elephant in the room and talk about why we didn't compare these new Intel chips

46
00:03:11,640 --> 00:03:19,080
to AMD's 9850X3D, their more recent fastest gaming CPU.

47
00:03:16,880 --> 00:03:23,880
Unfortunately, we can't test every CPU on the market, so we opted to represent

48
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:26,000
the 9800X3D instead of the 9850X3D

49
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:31,160
because more of you guys are currently running it. And it's also very close in

50
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:34,320
performance to the 9850X3D. [music] And if we're being entirely honest, we did

51
00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:37,840
not expect Intel to compete at the very top of these performance charts.

52
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:41,400
You got me, Intel. But if you are looking for even more data, keep an eye

53
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:45,920
on lttlabs.com, where we are always adding new tests to compare. So, what

54
00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:50,160
changes under the hood did Intel make to refresh their Arrow Lake CPUs and get

55
00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:55,840
these impressive results? Well, first off, they bumped up the clocks all core

56
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:58,080
boost on the P and E cores with the new

57
00:03:55,840 --> 00:04:00,960
processors. Sorry,

58
00:03:59,240 --> 00:04:04,040
they also tweaked uncore frequencies. Uncore meaning everything that's not the

59
00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:08,200
cores, and they've improved the die-to-die performance and IO frequency,

60
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:12,280
meaning faster communication to the parts within the CPU and to the other

61
00:04:10,600 --> 00:04:17,200
components in your system, which allowed them to support higher speed memory. Oh,

62
00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:21,040
right. And there's just plain more CPU. Both of these new chips bring an extra

63
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:25,640
four E-cores and some bonus shared cash along for the ride, which makes the

64
00:04:23,000 --> 00:04:29,720
naming of these CPUs really confusing. Why does the Ultra 7 270K Plus have the

65
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:34,120
same number of cores as the Ultra 9 285K? And why [music] is it performing

66
00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:37,440
better? Shouldn't the higher number CPU be better? I mean, at least like the

67
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:40,919
250K Plus actually has fewer cores than the 265K, so something makes sense

68
00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:45,160
there. But even there, in terms of performance, the 250K Plus is looking

69
00:04:42,919 --> 00:04:50,360
more like a replacement for the 265K rather than the 245K. So, like, what are

70
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:51,720
they thinking with these names? It's tough to say, but

71
00:04:51,478 --> 00:04:56,919
>> [gasps] >> the main thing Intel wants you to focus on is the plus. Apparently, this new

72
00:04:55,400 --> 00:05:01,840
convention is going to indicate that it's for enthusiasts. Intel, whatever

73
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:06,000
you're paying your marketing division, it is too much. And whatever you're

74
00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:09,640
paying your engineers, it ain't enough. On to productivity. Intel made some big

75
00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:17,120
claims in their announcement about multi-core performance, saying that the 250K Plus has a 103%

76
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:22,120
lead over the 9600X. Yeah, let's see if that's true. Jesus

77
00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:24,280
Christ. In Blender, the 250K Plus just

78
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:30,320
pummels AMD's price competitors. And at the high end, the 270K Plus is neck and

79
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:32,600
neck with the 9950X. In Cinebench, well,

80
00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:37,720
bow to your new multi-core king as the 270K Plus tops the charts with his

81
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:40,640
brother Duke 250K Plus outperforming his counterparts. On the other hand, in

82
00:05:39,200 --> 00:05:46,040
single-core performance, the higher boost on the 285K and 265K keep them

83
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:49,280
positioned above their plus named heirs. If you're looking to decompress, you can

84
00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:53,440
relax knowing that these new chips also perform well in 7-Zip, even if they are

85
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:57,600
a step below royalty. But, in pretty much every workload, the plus CPUs are

86
00:05:55,640 --> 00:06:01,480
either fighting for the top spot or absolutely dominating in price [music]

87
00:05:59,600 --> 00:06:04,680
to performance. Except in Photoshop, where there is a clear platform

88
00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:07,800
preference for AMD, but outside of that, Intel has stolen back the productivity

89
00:06:06,149 --> 00:06:10,920
[music] crown, especially considering price to performance. So, don't ignore

90
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:16,320
them if you're doing any sort of productivity work in addition to your gaming. Let's say this in a way Twitch

91
00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:21,400
streamers can understand. Intel is value maxing and absolutely price mogging AMD.

92
00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:26,440
Well, that's crazy. After several generations of power-hungry CPUs, Intel slayed the

93
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:31,520
power efficiency dragon with Arrow Lake, but CPU refreshes often result in power

94
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:36,200
consumption increases. So, was that dragon really a hydra? Well, in gaming,

95
00:06:33,600 --> 00:06:40,680
power usage on the 250K plus and 270K plus has increased by 10% or more

96
00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:44,600
compared to their non-plus brethren, but on the whole, have a lower average and

97
00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:49,320
max power consumption than AMD's chips in 124. And, Intel's doing this while

98
00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:53,000
being pretty competitive in performance, too. In Cinebench, we can see that Intel

99
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:56,800
is still happy to let their chips let loose with power to really maximize

100
00:06:54,960 --> 00:07:01,240
performance, even if it comes at the cost of efficiency, but still, Intel

101
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:05,099
might make up the difference by having quite good idle power draw, especially

102
00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:08,040
compared to AMD. >> [music] >> And, this well-managed power curve on

103
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:12,520
the new chips translates to a well-managed thermals on our Arctic

104
00:07:09,880 --> 00:07:15,840
Liquid Freezer 3 360 mm clad test benches. And, even when drawing full

105
00:07:14,240 --> 00:07:22,400
power, they perform well under their rated max temp. >> [music] >> Remember, the TJ max for these CPUs is

106
00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:24,080
105° compared to AMD's 95. And, the

107
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:28,800
crazy thing is that if you really want to push your chip, or if you're just like heinously thermally constrained,

108
00:07:27,480 --> 00:07:34,120
Intel will let you set your temperature budget to 115° C and still honor the

109
00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:37,600
warranty. That's awesome.

110
00:07:35,640 --> 00:07:40,760
Also kind of scary. It sounds great so far, yeah, but there's still more to

111
00:07:39,160 --> 00:07:45,640
talk about. Intel has a few tricks up their sleeves, and it's in the form of

112
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:50,320
software enhancements. Yeah, we love that. The Intel Binary

113
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:54,240
Optimization Tool or I Bot is part of their Application Optimizer software and

114
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:57,800
Intel considers this to be a core part of their long-term performance strategy.

115
00:07:56,280 --> 00:08:01,160
Basically, what it does is analyze the functions being called by an application

116
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:04,560
and redirects the call to a function that's better optimized for Intel

117
00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:07,800
hardware. Intel wants to make it very clear that they're not changing the work

118
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:12,760
that's being done or skipping any steps, but it's kind of like switching from using a kit of different screwdrivers to

119
00:08:10,960 --> 00:08:15,600
a convenient multi-bit screwdriver from lttstore.com. [music]

120
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:20,320
It does all the same work, just more efficiently and sexier.

121
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:22,390
Intel claims improvements as high as 20% depending on the game when you're using

122
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:27,960
I Bot, >> [music] >> but we didn't see anything like that in our testing. There's a clear uplift when

123
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:31,280
compared against the baseline condition and Intel's current version of

124
00:08:29,560 --> 00:08:34,280
application optimization, but it's nothing to write home about. For safety,

125
00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:37,960
we checked to see if I Bot was increasing power consumption, but it

126
00:08:36,000 --> 00:08:41,240
doesn't seem to outside of maybe the added power consumption of running your

127
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:44,600
games that little bit faster. Performance is enhanced, but it's not by

128
00:08:43,039 --> 00:08:48,520
a lot [music] and I Bot can be a nuisance to enable in their utility and

129
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:51,839
also like you know, it all depends if those programs that you use are being

130
00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:56,600
optimized, so who knows? It could be a really big deal or just another unused

131
00:08:54,120 --> 00:09:00,760
setting in your driver software. Oh, and uh bad news for all 349 of you who

132
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:04,600
bought this generation of Intel CPUs, Intel is making no promises on bringing

133
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:07,800
these optimizations to their non-plus CPUs. Bummer. [music]

134
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:12,920
This is some pretty new stuff, so let us know in the comments if you'd like to see a more in-depth look at I Bot in an

135
00:09:10,920 --> 00:09:15,680
upcoming video. Just like Intel though, no promises.

136
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:20,560
Alrighty, let's talk [music] about pricing. It's incredible, assuming that this pricing will exist in the real

137
00:09:18,839 --> 00:09:28,160
world and that Intel isn't just taking a page from AMD's 970 XT playbook. 599, XT

138
00:09:24,720 --> 00:09:28,160
599, fake

139
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:37,080
My gut says that this pricing is too good to be true, but if it isn't, AMD

140
00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:40,320
will need to respond. Whether that's by raising the performance bar with a

141
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:44,440
generational refresh that actually does something, looking at you the 9850X3D,

142
00:09:42,680 --> 00:09:48,240
or by slashing retail pricing of their current lineup, or both. I just hope

143
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:53,640
that these great prices and products from Intel are not just here to score headlines in a time where no one can

144
00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:56,880
afford to build a computer anyways. It's just so performative. [music]

145
00:09:55,640 --> 00:10:01,440
By the way, ladies, I've been getting really into matcha lattes and Claro.

146
00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:05,080
What a talent. And I listen to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings on Blinkist

147
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:10,360
because you know, [music] I'm an ally. And also, I'm segueing to our sponsor.

148
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:15,720
So, Vessi Weekend Neo, what do you do for fun?

149
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:18,040
Oh, no way. I also love long walks in

150
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:22,560
cities, mountains, forests, and other environments regardless of weather

151
00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:30,480
conditions. Oh, Vessi Weekend Neo, you are so funny.

152
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:32,760
And may I say, stylish as well.

153
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:38,080
This might be a bit forward, but you just look so lightweight and

154
00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:43,480
breathable. But, ah, I don't know.

155
00:10:41,160 --> 00:10:46,880
I lead a pretty busy lifestyle and and I need someone that can

156
00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:58,120
Sorry, did you just say you're built to be 100% waterproof? That's exactly what

157
00:10:56,280 --> 00:11:02,160
I'm looking for in a shoe.

158
00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:06,120
I'd love to see you again. How can I reach you?

159
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:12,120
At vessi.com/LTT for 15% off, 30-day returns, free

160
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:13,280
shipping, and a 1-year warranty?

161
00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:18,680
Got it. That's a weird phone number.

162
00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,680
But, I like weird.

163
00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:25,240
Thanks for watching this video. Check out our review of the 9850X3D to see

164
00:11:23,280 --> 00:11:27,800
more about the bestest CPUs in [music] the game.