WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.040 You might think the Ryzen 79850X3D is the best gaming CPU on the market, 00:00:04.560 --> 00:00:10.520 but as of today, that all does not 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% 00:00:14.040 --> 00:00:20.640 of the price? That is what Intel has bequeathed upon the land with their 00:00:17.600 --> 00:00:22.160 Ultra 7 270K Plus. 00:00:20.640 --> 00:00:27.320 God, who is naming these things? Anyways, take a look at this. In Cities: 00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:29.400 Skylines II, Intel's Ultra 7 270K Plus 00:00:27.320 --> 00:00:35.000 outpaces both of their previous flagships and is nipping at the heels of 00:00:31.800 --> 00:00:35.960 the 9800X3D. And what's even crazier is 00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:41.240 that the second chip that they announced, the Ultra 5 250K Plus, is 00:00:38.760 --> 00:00:47.160 also a flagship killer. It beats AMD's 9950X. That's a $650 00:00:44.800 --> 00:00:53.960 CPU. Oh, right, and I haven't even mentioned price. The 270K and the 250K 00:00:50.040 --> 00:00:56.040 are dropping at a mere $300 and $200 00:00:53.960 --> 00:01:01.080 respectively. Prices that are actually lower than the launch prices of the CPUs 00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:05.720 they are meant to replace. It's crazy. And moving into Cyberpunk, the winning 00:01:02.840 --> 00:01:10.200 streak continues. Intel's 270K Plus is on the podium, while the 250K Plus 00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:16.160 outperforms the 14900K and the Ryzen 9950X. It just sits 00:01:13.640 --> 00:01:20.840 slightly underneath the 265K in 1% lows, but it actually has an edge in average 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 00:01:22.480 --> 00:01:29.480 am again emphasizing the importance of 1% lows. Those are what indicates a 00:01:27.200 --> 00:01:33.480 smoother gaming experience. So, what's the catch with these chips? Are they 00:01:30.920 --> 00:01:37.200 power hungry or unstable? Is the price just too good to be true? It just might 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:42.640 be. But, what is good and also true is this 00:01:40.080 --> 00:01:47.360 in-depth review of Intel's newest CPUs and [music] the segue to our sponsor. 00:01:45.960 --> 00:01:51.080 Hi. What's up? Sorry, this is all very new 00:01:49.560 --> 00:01:55.400 to me. I've never speed dated before. What's your name? 00:01:52.880 --> 00:01:59.320 Vessi Weekend Neo. Beautiful name. Where are you from? 00:01:57.280 --> 00:02:04.880 Oh, the link in the description? I've always wanted to go there. Tell me more. 00:02:03.160 --> 00:02:10.080 Continuing with our 1080p gaming results in F1 24, we see AMD's whole lineup 00:02:07.280 --> 00:02:15.760 faring pretty well with the 9700X going above and beyond and overtaking 00:02:12.040 --> 00:02:18.861 the 270K plus and the i9 14900K. The new 00:02:15.760 --> 00:02:20.880 250K plus trails the 9600X, although 00:02:18.861 --> 00:02:24.000 [music] not by much. But Intel's dominance is seriously challenged in 00:02:22.440 --> 00:02:28.760 Counter-Strike 2, where their new high-end hotness only barely catches 00:02:25.959 --> 00:02:33.240 AMD's mid-range 9600X. At least Intel's new CPUs are outperforming their own 00:02:30.240 --> 00:02:34.840 team, except for the 14900K. 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 00:02:37.840 --> 00:02:44.880 claim. The Ultra 7 270K plus is the fastest gaming CPU Intel's ever built, 00:02:42.920 --> 00:02:50.560 even if it's not the fastest gaming CPU anyone's ever built, landing [music] 00:02:46.880 --> 00:02:53.000 just 5% shy of AMD's 9800X3D in 1% lows 00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:58.680 and 10% behind in average frame rate. But think of the price, the the price. 00:02:55.400 --> 00:03:02.360 And the 250K is also an excellent value. 00:02:58.680 --> 00:03:04.239 It beats the 9600X by 5 to 10% or more, 00:03:02.360 --> 00:03:08.480 depending on the game, whilst demanding a very small price premium. But before 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 00:03:11.640 --> 00:03:19.080 to AMD's 9850X3D, their more recent fastest gaming CPU. 00:03:16.880 --> 00:03:23.880 Unfortunately, we can't test every CPU on the market, so we opted to represent 00:03:20.840 --> 00:03:26.000 the 9800X3D instead of the 9850X3D 00:03:23.880 --> 00:03:31.160 because more of you guys are currently running it. And it's also very close in 00:03:28.600 --> 00:03:34.320 performance to the 9850X3D. [music] And if we're being entirely honest, we did 00:03:32.560 --> 00:03:37.840 not expect Intel to compete at the very top of these performance charts. 00:03:36.200 --> 00:03:41.400 You got me, Intel. But if you are looking for even more data, keep an eye 00:03:39.480 --> 00:03:45.920 on lttlabs.com, where we are always adding new tests to compare. So, what 00:03:44.360 --> 00:03:50.160 changes under the hood did Intel make to refresh their Arrow Lake CPUs and get 00:03:48.120 --> 00:03:55.840 these impressive results? Well, first off, they bumped up the clocks all core 00:03:52.840 --> 00:03:58.080 boost on the P and E cores with the new 00:03:55.840 --> 00:04:00.960 processors. Sorry, 00:03:59.240 --> 00:04:04.040 they also tweaked uncore frequencies. Uncore meaning everything that's not the 00:04:02.600 --> 00:04:08.200 cores, and they've improved the die-to-die performance and IO frequency, 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:12.280 meaning faster communication to the parts within the CPU and to the other 00:04:10.600 --> 00:04:17.200 components in your system, which allowed them to support higher speed memory. Oh, 00:04:14.840 --> 00:04:21.040 right. And there's just plain more CPU. Both of these new chips bring an extra 00:04:18.720 --> 00:04:25.640 four E-cores and some bonus shared cash along for the ride, which makes the 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:29.720 naming of these CPUs really confusing. Why does the Ultra 7 270K Plus have the 00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:34.120 same number of cores as the Ultra 9 285K? And why [music] is it performing 00:04:32.120 --> 00:04:37.440 better? Shouldn't the higher number CPU be better? I mean, at least like the 00:04:35.320 --> 00:04:40.919 250K Plus actually has fewer cores than the 265K, so something makes sense 00:04:39.520 --> 00:04:45.160 there. But even there, in terms of performance, the 250K Plus is looking 00:04:42.919 --> 00:04:50.360 more like a replacement for the 265K rather than the 245K. So, like, what are 00:04:48.040 --> 00:04:51.720 they thinking with these names? It's tough to say, but 00:04:51.478 --> 00:04:56.919 >> [gasps] >> the main thing Intel wants you to focus on is the plus. Apparently, this new 00:04:55.400 --> 00:05:01.840 convention is going to indicate that it's for enthusiasts. Intel, whatever 00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:06.000 you're paying your marketing division, it is too much. And whatever you're 00:05:03.800 --> 00:05:09.640 paying your engineers, it ain't enough. On to productivity. Intel made some big 00:05:08.360 --> 00:05:17.120 claims in their announcement about multi-core performance, saying that the 250K Plus has a 103% 00:05:14.560 --> 00:05:22.120 lead over the 9600X. Yeah, let's see if that's true. Jesus 00:05:19.120 --> 00:05:24.280 Christ. In Blender, the 250K Plus just 00:05:22.120 --> 00:05:30.320 pummels AMD's price competitors. And at the high end, the 270K Plus is neck and 00:05:27.160 --> 00:05:32.600 neck with the 9950X. In Cinebench, well, 00:05:30.320 --> 00:05:37.720 bow to your new multi-core king as the 270K Plus tops the charts with his 00:05:34.960 --> 00:05:40.640 brother Duke 250K Plus outperforming his counterparts. On the other hand, in 00:05:39.200 --> 00:05:46.040 single-core performance, the higher boost on the 285K and 265K keep them 00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:49.280 positioned above their plus named heirs. If you're looking to decompress, you can 00:05:47.520 --> 00:05:53.440 relax knowing that these new chips also perform well in 7-Zip, even if they are 00:05:51.400 --> 00:05:57.600 a step below royalty. But, in pretty much every workload, the plus CPUs are 00:05:55.640 --> 00:06:01.480 either fighting for the top spot or absolutely dominating in price [music] 00:05:59.600 --> 00:06:04.680 to performance. Except in Photoshop, where there is a clear platform 00:06:02.960 --> 00:06:07.800 preference for AMD, but outside of that, Intel has stolen back the productivity 00:06:06.149 --> 00:06:10.920 [music] crown, especially considering price to performance. So, don't ignore 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 00:06:14.320 --> 00:06:21.400 streamers can understand. Intel is value maxing and absolutely price mogging AMD. 00:06:19.640 --> 00:06:26.440 Well, that's crazy. After several generations of power-hungry CPUs, Intel slayed the 00:06:24.640 --> 00:06:31.520 power efficiency dragon with Arrow Lake, but CPU refreshes often result in power 00:06:29.440 --> 00:06:36.200 consumption increases. So, was that dragon really a hydra? Well, in gaming, 00:06:33.600 --> 00:06:40.680 power usage on the 250K plus and 270K plus has increased by 10% or more 00:06:38.320 --> 00:06:44.600 compared to their non-plus brethren, but on the whole, have a lower average and 00:06:42.520 --> 00:06:49.320 max power consumption than AMD's chips in 124. And, Intel's doing this while 00:06:47.640 --> 00:06:53.000 being pretty competitive in performance, too. In Cinebench, we can see that Intel 00:06:51.400 --> 00:06:56.800 is still happy to let their chips let loose with power to really maximize 00:06:54.960 --> 00:07:01.240 performance, even if it comes at the cost of efficiency, but still, Intel 00:06:59.320 --> 00:07:05.099 might make up the difference by having quite good idle power draw, especially 00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:08.040 compared to AMD. >> [music] >> And, this well-managed power curve on 00:07:06.880 --> 00:07:12.520 the new chips translates to a well-managed thermals on our Arctic 00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:15.840 Liquid Freezer 3 360 mm clad test benches. And, even when drawing full 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 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:24.080 105° compared to AMD's 95. And, the 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, 00:07:27.480 --> 00:07:34.120 Intel will let you set your temperature budget to 115° C and still honor the 00:07:32.320 --> 00:07:37.600 warranty. That's awesome. 00:07:35.640 --> 00:07:40.760 Also kind of scary. It sounds great so far, yeah, but there's still more to 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 00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:50.320 software enhancements. Yeah, we love that. The Intel Binary 00:07:48.280 --> 00:07:54.240 Optimization Tool or I Bot is part of their Application Optimizer software and 00:07:52.280 --> 00:07:57.800 Intel considers this to be a core part of their long-term performance strategy. 00:07:56.280 --> 00:08:01.160 Basically, what it does is analyze the functions being called by an application 00:07:59.560 --> 00:08:04.560 and redirects the call to a function that's better optimized for Intel 00:08:02.920 --> 00:08:07.800 hardware. Intel wants to make it very clear that they're not changing the work 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 00:08:10.960 --> 00:08:15.600 a convenient multi-bit screwdriver from lttstore.com. [music] 00:08:14.080 --> 00:08:20.320 It does all the same work, just more efficiently and sexier. 00:08:18.040 --> 00:08:22.390 Intel claims improvements as high as 20% depending on the game when you're using 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 00:08:26.480 --> 00:08:31.280 compared against the baseline condition and Intel's current version of 00:08:29.560 --> 00:08:34.280 application optimization, but it's nothing to write home about. For safety, 00:08:32.800 --> 00:08:37.960 we checked to see if I Bot was increasing power consumption, but it 00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:41.240 doesn't seem to outside of maybe the added power consumption of running your 00:08:39.400 --> 00:08:44.600 games that little bit faster. Performance is enhanced, but it's not by 00:08:43.039 --> 00:08:48.520 a lot [music] and I Bot can be a nuisance to enable in their utility and 00:08:46.960 --> 00:08:51.839 also like you know, it all depends if those programs that you use are being 00:08:50.160 --> 00:08:56.600 optimized, so who knows? It could be a really big deal or just another unused 00:08:54.120 --> 00:09:00.760 setting in your driver software. Oh, and uh bad news for all 349 of you who 00:08:58.760 --> 00:09:04.600 bought this generation of Intel CPUs, Intel is making no promises on bringing 00:09:02.640 --> 00:09:07.800 these optimizations to their non-plus CPUs. Bummer. [music] 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 00:09:10.920 --> 00:09:15.680 upcoming video. Just like Intel though, no promises. 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 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 00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:28.160 599, fake 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 00:09:34.400 --> 00:09:40.320 will need to respond. Whether that's by raising the performance bar with a 00:09:38.440 --> 00:09:44.440 generational refresh that actually does something, looking at you the 9850X3D, 00:09:42.680 --> 00:09:48.240 or by slashing retail pricing of their current lineup, or both. I just hope 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 00:09:51.800 --> 00:09:56.880 afford to build a computer anyways. It's just so performative. [music] 00:09:55.640 --> 00:10:01.440 By the way, ladies, I've been getting really into matcha lattes and Claro. 00:09:59.400 --> 00:10:05.080 What a talent. And I listen to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings on Blinkist 00:10:02.840 --> 00:10:10.360 because you know, [music] I'm an ally. And also, I'm segueing to our sponsor. 00:10:08.160 --> 00:10:15.720 So, Vessi Weekend Neo, what do you do for fun? 00:10:12.720 --> 00:10:18.040 Oh, no way. I also love long walks in 00:10:15.720 --> 00:10:22.560 cities, mountains, forests, and other environments regardless of weather 00:10:19.920 --> 00:10:30.480 conditions. Oh, Vessi Weekend Neo, you are so funny. 00:10:26.760 --> 00:10:32.760 And may I say, stylish as well. 00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:38.080 This might be a bit forward, but you just look so lightweight and 00:10:36.360 --> 00:10:43.480 breathable. But, ah, I don't know. 00:10:41.160 --> 00:10:46.880 I lead a pretty busy lifestyle and and I need someone that can 00:10:51.360 --> 00:10:58.120 Sorry, did you just say you're built to be 100% waterproof? That's exactly what 00:10:56.280 --> 00:11:02.160 I'm looking for in a shoe. 00:11:00.520 --> 00:11:06.120 I'd love to see you again. How can I reach you? 00:11:04.480 --> 00:11:12.120 At vessi.com/LTT for 15% off, 30-day returns, free 00:11:08.360 --> 00:11:13.280 shipping, and a 1-year warranty? 00:11:12.120 --> 00:11:18.680 Got it. That's a weird phone number. 00:11:15.600 --> 00:11:18.680 But, I like weird. 00:11:20.000 --> 00:11:25.240 Thanks for watching this video. Check out our review of the 9850X3D to see 00:11:23.280 --> 00:11:27.800 more about the bestest CPUs in [music] the game.