Intel canned the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus from the Arrow Lake refresh lineup announced a few months ago, despite a swirling of leaks and rumors confirming its existence. The chip ultimately never came out, but a Chinese reviewer just got their hands on an engineering sample and put it through the wringer — the underwhelming results in games and professional apps show why Intel likely chose to keep it in the archives.
As a reminder, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus would be based on the existing 285K, so it'd share the same 24-core config (8P+8E) but with slightly tuned clock speeds, DDR5-7200 support, and newer features such as Intel's binary optimization tool. That tool is actually one of the ways to confirm this 290K Plus was legit since it only supports Arrow Lake refresh silicon at the moment, and the BIOS recognized the CPU correctly.
Jumping to the tests, multi-core results in synthetic benchmarks were more impressive than the single-core numbers. The biggest win was seen in CPU-Z, where the 290K Plus was 2.84% faster than the 270K Plus. In Cinebench R24, the 290K Plus managed only a 0.69% higher score in the single-core test. On average across all synthetic workloads, the 290K Plus beat its lower-tier counterpart by only 1.5%.
Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus Benchmarks
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmark Metric | Core Ultra 9 290K Plus | Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | Performance Delta (U9 vs U7) |
|---|---|---|---|
CPU-Z (Single-Core) | 920 | 905 | +1.65% |
CPU-Z (Multi-Core) | 19,546 | 19,007 | +2.84% |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core) | 2,465 | 2,433 | +1.32% |
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core) | 44,810 | 44,230 | +1.31% |
Cinebench R24 (Single-Core) | 146 | 145 | +0.69% |
Cinebench R24 (Multi-Core) | 2,568 | 2,540 | +1.10% |
Geekbench 6 (Single-Core) | 3,315 | 3,286 | +0.88% |
Geekbench 6 (Multi-Core) | 24,273 | 23,642 | +2.67% |
In more intensive tasks such as compression, real-time rendering, and compiling, AMD's new Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 won in all but one test: Ansys Fluent Simulation. Here, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus was 9.3% faster than AMD's offering and about 4.6% faster than the 270K Plus. Averaging out all the results, the 290K Plus was 6.3% faster than the 270K Plus but about 8.3% behind the 9950X3D2.
Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus Gaming Benchmarks
At 1080p, the average FPS improvement over the 270K Plus is about 2% across six titles. The biggest difference was in Delta Force, where the 290K Plus achieved 8.3% higher FPS and 3.33% better 1% lows. Both Black Myth: Wukong and Resident Evil 9 actually saw it lose to the 270K Plus by around 1%. The 9950X3D2, as you'd expect, bested either Intel offering with ease thanks to its massive cache pool.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Game | Core Ultra 9 290K Plus | Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | Performance Delta (U9 vs U7) |
|---|---|---|---|
Counter Strike 2 | Avg: 368 / 1% Low: 214 | Avg: 364 / 1% Low: 212 | Avg: +1.10% / 1% Low: +0.94% |
PUBG | Avg: 193 / 1% Low: 99 | Avg: 189 / 1% Low: 96 | Avg: +2.12% / 1% Low: +3.12% |
Delta Force | Avg: 234 / 1% Low: 93 | Avg: 216 / 1% Low: 90 | Avg: +8.33% / 1% Low: +3.33% |
Black Myth: Wukong | Avg: 98 / 1% Low: 87 | Avg: 99 / 1% Low: 88 | Avg: -1.01% / 1% Low: -1.14% |
Resident Evil 9 | Avg: 138 / 1% Low: 103 | Avg: 139 / 1% Low: 100 | Avg: -0.72% / 1% Low: +3.00% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | Avg: 206 / 1% Low: 123 | Avg: 201 / 1% Low: 123 | Avg: +2.49% / 1% Low: 0.00% |
Moving to 1440p gaming, the difference shrinks even more since the games become more GPU-reliant as you scale the resolution ladder. Delta Force once again exhibits the largest gap, about 6.8% ahead of the 270K Plus, and a surprising 14% ahead in 1% lows. The 290K Plus still falls 1% behind in Black Myth: Wukong while matching the 270K Plus in Resident Evil 9. On average, the unreleased flagship is 1.5% faster than the actual top-end Arrow Lake refresh CPU.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Game | Core Ultra 9 290K Plus | Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | Performance Delta (U9 vs U7) |
|---|---|---|---|
Counter Strike 2 | Avg: 352 / 1% Low: 211 | Avg: 344 / 1% Low: 209 | Avg: +2.33% / 1% Low: +0.96% |
PUBG | Avg: 189 / 1% Low: 103 | Avg: 188 / 1% Low: 94 | Avg: +0.53% / 1% Low: +9.57% |
Delta Force | Avg: 218 / 1% Low: 89 | Avg: 204 / 1% Low: 78 | Avg: +6.86% / 1% Low: +14.10% |
Black Myth: Wukong | Avg: 86 / 1% Low: 76 | Avg: 87 / 1% Low: 78 | Avg: -1.15% / 1% Low: -2.56% |
Resident Evil 9 | Avg: 95 / 1% Low: 73 | Avg: 95 / 1% Low: 73 | Avg: 0.00% / 1% Low: 0.00% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | Avg: 184 / 1% Low: 127 | Avg: 183 / 1% Low: 129 | Avg: +0.55% / 1% Low: -1.55% |
If we put all the numbers together, we get roughly 2% gains in gaming and almost 4% in productivity tasks, compared to the Core Ultra 270K Plus. Those slim margins would make it hard to justify a much higher price tag for a Core Ultra 9 SKU, which explains why Intel likely never released it. The chips that did come out are excellent value, so that a flagship offering might've thrown the whole lineup off-balance, especially in terms of optics.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.