All right, Intel has a CPU. It's a $200

CPU. It's called the Ultra 5 250K Plus,

the 250KP as we're calling it. And

there's some software that you need to

use with it called the Intel Platform

Performance Package, or as I've been

calling it, Intel's PP package. Now, the

Intel PP package isn't too big. It's

only about 100 megabytes, but it does

seem to get the job done for Intel. Uh,

when we were testing Intel's PV package,

I'm not sure why my team kept laughing

like every single time I was asking

them, did you use the PV package or you

forgot to use the PV package? And I

every they just kept laughing at me. I

don't know. I'm not I don't really get

it. It just felt like we're all just

going to laugh at Steve today for

apparently no reason whatsoever when all

I was trying to do is make sure that

Intel's PP package is getting use.

>> Thanks, Steve. Anyway, the company is

launching a $300 270K Plus CPU as well

that we'll review in our next video.

These two are the Aerol Lakeake refresh

CPUs that use the existing LGA1 1851

socket motherboards. I'll give you the

TLDDR to save everyone a little bit of

time. The short version up front is that

Intel's new 250K Plus CPU finally brings

Intel back to parody with its 14th gen,

undoing a lot of the regression and

gaming that we saw with the 200 series

at launch. In some situations, it even

best the 285K by a couple FPS, although

enabling 200s boost on the 285K can

sometimes equalize them. Again, most of

the time, we see the 250K Plus around

the level of the 14600K and the 285K. It

trails the 9800 XD predictably and

significantly, but it also costs a lot

less, so it isn't a direct comparison.

We're seeing large gains in gaming over

the 9600X and actually production

workloads as well, like 24% in this

case, and significantly better

performance than Intel's own preceding

245K in basically every situation.

That's largely due to going with more

cores and cache for the 250K plus rather

than the 245K as opposed to a pure clock

bump. In non- gaming workloads, Intel

maintains a good overall position

against AMD's price equivalent options

like the 9600X or the 250K Plus. For the

most part in the test that we run, Intel

250 KP is just straight up better in a

lot of the non-gaming tests and actually

in a lot of the gaming tests versus the

9600 X. That said, AMD's 5800 X3D and

5700 X3D 5600 X3D still do really well

in gaming and often do beat the 250 KP.

The biggest challenge for Intel remains

the fact that Intel has a poor history

of motherboard longevity. This is

probably the last in the line other than

maybe other AeroLake refreshes for this

motherboard socket. We're keeping this

one pretty simple today. Still a lot of

charts. There's a lot of data, but

relatively simple as far as we're

concerned. We're not going to get into

the efficiency as in performance per

watt that we've done in the past. And to

be real open with you, I am

tired. Like I have not left the office

for about a week and I would like to go

sleep at some point. So, uh, the couch

is getting its I mean, it's not great

for my back. So, we're going to keep

this focused on gaming production

frequency. Got a little bit of power in

there just to address it. Uh, and then

maybe we'll expand the scope on this in

the future. If there's some interest in

these parts, we can always add some

additional tests. But for the most part,

I think we've got a pretty good scope of

coverage here. Uh, we'll start with the

250KP today. We'll do the 270KP in a

separate review video coming up

basically immediately after this one as

our next video. Um, and the the reason

this has been such a haul is not because

of the CPUs necessarily, but because in

the last week we had the DLSS5 news. We

had Noct was case review that we ran

where uh that is the most in-depth case

benchmark I think we've ever done. We

had the fan testing data in there as

well. We ran Discord alternatives. We

did the Crimson Desert benchmarking. We

debuted our animation error or

simulation time error charts for actual

GPU comparison in that testing. So, it

has been a very busy week, but we're

going to close it out with the 2D KP

review. Let's get started. Before that,

this video is brought to you by the Mont

HSO1 and HSO2 cases. The HSO1 and HSO2

cases differ by way of a mesh front or a

curved glass front. We previously

reviewed these cases in our intensive

benchmarking process and found them to

be overall high build quality with

thermals comparable between the two

designs. The rear chamber of the case

uniquely brings the power supply forward

and perforates the rear wall of the case

allowing for more air movement

internally while providing a different

look. The rear of the case uses a fan

mounting mechanism for two separate fans

that can be coupled together with a

plate improving convenience. The HSO1

and HSO2 also invert with minimal

effort, allowing the computer to present

to the opposite side without needing to

reconfigure the entire build. Learn more

at the links in the description below.

The new CPU has launched in a few days,

which is good. That means they're giving

people time to watch reviews before they

make a decision. So, that's nice. Uh,

behind the scenes, Intel was extremely

disorganized, at least in handling our

side of things, for the reviews for this

one. So, I I haven't really seen Intel

this scatter. They were late with

getting us information. They're late

getting software out. the CPUs didn't

really arrive with that much time to

work on them either for us and I I just

was not impressed. Now that said, that's

not part of the product. It's not part

of the consumer experience. So, we won't

factor that into the conclusions or

anything, but I do think it's maybe an

indicator of where Intel's at where this

is not like Intel. I don't know if it's

because of the layoffs or what, but

anyway, we'll start with a refresher on

the CPU side of the market. We already

know RAM is rag. So, focusing on the

CPUs, the 250 KP is a $200 part.

Currently, the 245K is also $200. The

14600 K is largely gone other than

third-party ripoffs or used listings

which are fine but variable in price.

And these 9600X is currently about $190,

making it a head-to-head competitor by

price. The 7700 X is around $250 with

the 7800 X3D at around 350 to $380. Now,

the 7800 X3D is definitely worth

considering at that price, but maybe

more as an alternative to the more

similarly priced 270KP that we'll review

next. It's in a different price class

for the 250 KP. Just for reference, the

285K is currently $530 after a discount

code with the 9800 X3D at 450 after a

similar discount code. Intel's new 250K

Plus CPU is in the former i5 lineup and

should be $190 to $200. They say the

250K Plus is running a 6P core 12E core

configuration for an 18 core 18thread

spec at 5.3 GHz max boost advertised.

TDP is claimed to be 159 watts for the

250K Plus. Although TDP and actual power

don't match exactly, Intel is also now

claiming native support for up to DDR5

7200 on the 250 KP, up from 6400

previously. So great, higherend memory

is supported. Now you can max out your

$200 CPU with your $2,400 RAM in your

motherboard that you'll only get to use

once. Notably, the extra cores also

print with them an L2 cache increased to

30 megabytes. For comparison, Intel's

245K runs a sixp core AE core

configuration for a 14 core 14thread

spec at 5.2 GHz. That's 100 MHz reduced

speed for maximum advertised boost and

that's four fewer ecores than the new

CPU. This is a reconfiguration of the

spec itself. So, the 250K Plus is not an

exact replacement for the 245K. The core

count change means it's not only a

frequency bump. The 245K is on 26

megabytes of L2 also. So, while the 250

KP is no X3D, it should still have an

outsized impact on performance against

the older 245K with its larger cache.

For reference, the Intel 285K is in the

former i9 lineup, now called Ultra

9200S, because that makes more sense

somehow, and it remains the highest core

count spec of this group. The 285K has

eight pores, 16 EC cores, and 24 total

cores and threads. Max advertised boost

is 5.7 GHz, making it the highest of the

group with ecore still at 4.6. Keep in

mind the actualized boost will be lower

as more threads are engaged with work.

All right, these CPUs require some

additional setup. This is important for

you to know as well because if you do

actually buy one, you'll need to do this

stuff. Intel setup documentation

reminded us of AMD's old 30-page core

parking setup guide from its first

generation of Park CPUs. And Intel's

document reads, quote, exclamation point

exclamation point. Stop. Important

information exclamation point

exclamation point. End quote. That's how

you know it's uh well I I think they're

trying to say it's important. They then

go on to say that the Intel platform

performance package or the PP package

for short or the PPP for even shorter

must be installed in order to correctly

activate quote scheduling core parking

idle power performance results and

feature availability end quote. Intel

warns in both bold and underline that a

Windows system won't work right without

this jokes on them. Windows never works

right. The setup guide explains that

reviewers received an impotent version

of Intel's PP package, noting that it

requires a second .exe. In other words,

after installing the CPU, the management

engine, and the chipset drivers, we also

had to install a separate .exe, and you

will too, for the platform performance

package software. This is not

automatically pulled by Windows, at

least not right now. In our case, we

also had to install a second separate

.exe for the driver tuning patch hot

fix. Intel claims that the public

version will only require the first

.exe, not the hot fix, that they had to

push out before the product launched,

but the fact that Intel made an active

decision to ship bugs to reviewers is

problematic for different reasons. Now,

we installed both the PB package and the

hot fix for it. So, we followed the

setup guide. We did, you know, as you're

supposed to do to get the CPU to work

properly. Um, still though, we don't

review the future. We don't review

promises from companies. We review what

they send us. And so although yes, we

did set it up the way Intel says you're

supposed to, uh, we also have to assume

that there's a chance that there's some

bug issues or that the hot fix doesn't

make it in or whatever into the consumer

products in a couple days because I have

no way of verifying that from where I am

right now, which is before launch. I

just know what they sent me. And uh, so

it's just disorganized. Now, it does at

least work if you do everything right,

but end user reviewer, whatever. A

company shouldn't be sending out a

product. It's like you have to install

this thing and then you have to

immediately install this fix for this

broken thing that you had to install to

get the thing to work the first time.

Intel also talked a lot of game about

its binary optimization tool which it

says quote opens a parallel to hardware

path for Intel to inspect and optimize

CPU circuit utilization to reduce cache

misses, branch mispredicts,

microarchitectural hotspots, and other

forms of artificial latency in the

compute pipeline. End quote.

Unfortunately, in a throwback to Intel's

busted APO launch, this requires yet

more software that users have to know to

install. And also similarly, it doesn't

work on much right now. Intel says that

the binary optimization tool currently

only works in 12 applications. It's also

optin, meaning it's not intended to be

something you use by default. So, we're

not testing it by default because it's

not I they literally say that the 12

applications it supports also kind of

limits how much we'd be able to see an

impact anyway because we don't test most

of them. Assassin's Creed Mirage,

Borderlands 3 from 2019, Cyberpunk 2077,

that one we do test. Far Cry 6 2021,

Final Fantasy 14 Dawn Trail, we also

test Hitman 3 from 2021, Hogwarts

Legacy, Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered,

Naraka Blade Point Remnant 2, Shadow of

the Tomb Raider from 2018, Tiny Tina's

Wonderland, and everyone's favorite

game, Geekbench. Many of these happen to

be ancient reviewer testing titles seems

intentionally selected. We've cycled

most of them out by now, but Cyber Punk

and Final Fantasy still overlap for us.

As for the claim to uplift, onethird of

these games get under 3% improvement.

Half of those are 1 to 2% different,

which would be indistinguishable from

test noise. Intel claims 6% in Final

Fantasy and 2% in Cyberpunk. It's

claiming 22% in Shadow of the Tomb

Raider, which we haven't tested in a

long time. Now, let's get into some

initial data. We'll start with frequency

validation. We perform these tests with

logging to ensure the CPU is functioning

as advertised and as expected from the

manufacturer, which helps with

validation for testing and with testing

the accuracy of the marketing claims.

Intel's website claims a 5.3 GHz maximum

pcore turbo boost for the CPU and 4.6

GHz maximum ecore boost. This chart

shows the frequency response across all

cores in an allcore workload, averaging

the pores and ecores separately. The

pecore average held about 5100 MHz

during most of the test with regular

drops to about 5 GHz. This is below the

5300 max advertised speed. However, the

maximum clocks are typically only in

workloads with the limited thread count.

The response here is normal given the

all core workload. The ecore frequency

hits and sustains 4.6 GHz. Adding the

245k for reference. The predecessor

averaged 5 GHz even for most of this

test. The dip down in the center is a

logging anomaly from the test process

and can be ignored. In general, the new

CPU is 100 to 200 MHz faster. Finally,

for reference, the 285K hit 5400 MHz

during most of this test. Its max

advertised boost is also higher for

single core workloads. This chart shows

the single core frequency response.

We're plotting the maximum frequency per

interval of all cores during a single

threaded workload with Cinebench. In

this task, the CPU technically does hit

the 5300 MHz advertised boost sometimes.

But for the bulk of the first part of

the workload, it's spending more time at

5100 MHz than 5300 MHz despite being

single threaded at this point. That's

not great. The back half of the workload

flips that around. So, it does

eventually spend more time at the

advertised 5300 MHz, but this at this

point is uncommon behavior. Adding the

245K to the chart, its maximum single

thread frequency per interval was 5200

MHz with regular intervals at 5,000 MHz.

The 250K Plus is faster by 100 to 300

MHz, but most commonly 100 MHz. The

285K's max single thread frequency was

5700 MHz in this chart. In BouldersGate

3 at 1080p, the Ultra 5250K Plus ran at

107 FPS average with lows at 75 and 66

FPS. running with Intel's PP package

installed yielded a 109 FPS average or a

2% improvement from installing Intel's

PP package. So, the PP package here

isn't doing a whole lot, but technically

it is getting the job done. That's close

enough that it may be variance, although

standard deviation in this title is

relatively low at 0.95 for average FPS.

Still, plus or minus one FPS would wash

this result, so there's no real world

impact in this one. Lows are also about

the same. We'll do comparisons against

the better of the two for the rest of

this. 109 FPS average with PvP puts

Intel's 250 KP just ahead of the 285K

nonPP with DDR58000 memory and ahead of

the like forlike 285K's 107 FPS average

by 1.7%. Against the Ultra 5 245K's 101

FPS average, we're seeing an uplift of

about 8%. AMD's older AM4 X3D CPUs are

still outperforming the 250 KP,

including the 5700 X3D and the 5600 X3D,

which is expected to be higher as its

clock is higher between the two. Both of

these are up at 115 to 116 FPS average.

The older i7 14700 K also leads to 250

KP as does the i5 14600 K, although only

by 2%. The 250 KP is definitely improved

on the first revision of Intel's 200

series. And at $200, sadly, it's a rare

sight these days. It's also doing worse

than the 14600 K, though, and AMD's AM4

X3D lineup remains ahead. The 250 KP is

substantially cheaper than the 7800 XD

and 9800 X3D, of course, but is the same

price as the launch price for the 5600

X3D and is $50 cheaper than the original

5700 XD price. Not that either can still

be found, but uh those are good

references for where AMD has been in

this price point in the past. Against

other CPUs, Intel's 250 KP with its

power PP outperforms the 9600X's 96 FPS

average by about 14%. And as you all

know, AMD doesn't have a PP package, so

this is tested without it for the 9600X.

Outer Worlds 2 is another one of the new

games we added to our test suite for

2026. in this benchmark and at 1080p

first. The 250K Plus ran at 120 FPS

average with PPP and 119 without it. So,

we're seeing at best a 0.8% improvement.

In reality, this is likely just margin

of error and test variance as that falls

within those bounds. At 120 FPS, the

250KP is about 2 FPS below the 13900K

from 2022, which itself was about the

same as the relatively new 285K. Adding

faster memory to the 285K didn't change

much as we've seen in other tests. Now

to establish the ceiling, the AMD 9850

X2D ran at 143 FPS average for a 19.6%

advantage on the much cheaper 250 KP.

For a closer price comparison, the 9600X

at 96 FPS average was outmatched by the

250 KP by 24%. In this one, Intel's 250

KP equaled the performance of the 14600K

from a few years ago. The efficiency may

be better, but performance hasn't

changed much in some of these games. As

for the 245K, the 250 KP ran 8.2% ahead

in average frame rate. At 1440p, the 250

KP ran at the same frame rate as at

1080p. We're not GPU bound, even at

1440p with our test settings, as we've

designed the test conditions to lean on

the CPU as much as possible. In this

scenario, there's no meaningful change

in the test. Even the 9850 X3D actually

isn't meaningfully lower than before.

We're fully CPUbound with the same

scaling. So, let's move on. Stellaris is

up now. This is tested using simulation

time rather than frame rate, meaning

that there's a real world time

difference in how long something takes.

A faster CPU will allow the game to

simulate faster. The 250 KP, both with

and without PBP, took about the same

amount of time, both around 39 seconds.

There's no difference between them.

We'll take the better of the two results

at 39.0 seconds for comparison. The

250KP doesn't meet the 285K's

performance level in this one, with the

285K benefiting from a 1.5% simulation

time reduction versus the 250 KP. That

said, the 285K is about $330 to $360

more expensive than the 250 KP depending

on where you buy it. Now, that

difference might be worth it in

production applications. We'll see in a

little bit, but it isn't in this

situation. The 250 KP outperforms AMD's

closest modern price comparison, the

9600X, by a few fractions of a second in

the simulation test. These two are about

the same in this test. The 250 KP out

does the 265K by about 1 to two seconds

and the 5800 XD by about two to three

seconds. Against the 245K, the 250 KP

benefits from a 9.7% reduction in

simulation time. That's a large

improvement for Intel, especially since

the 245K has also been about $200

lately. Just for perspective on this

chart, the 9850X 2D's results have a

time reduction of about 25% from the 250

KP. These are totally different by price

class, but it helps to give perspective

to the maximum uplift available. We

added Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 for our

2026 test suite. At 1080p, the 250 KP

with PPP ran at 227 FPS average, leading

the 250 KP without the PP package

enabled by about 1.2%. The 250 KP is

roughly tied with the 285K and follows

the 5800 X2D, the latter of which has a

lead of 3.9% at 236 FPS average. People

who bought the 5800 XD for gaming and

who don't need the extra multi-threaded

non-gaming performance really got out

ahead with the 5800 XD, which at this

point it's fair to say is goated.

Against the 9600X for a modern AMD price

comparison, the 250 KP runs 10% higher

frame rate. As for the 245K's 206 FPS

average, the 250 KP sees a massive

improvement of 10% while the 245K's

launch MSRP was 55% higher. These are

both moves in the right direction. Of

course, the 245K wasn't positioned well

at launch for gaming as Intel's own

14600K outperformed it. Previously, we

didn't see much benefit from faster

memory in this test with Intel. Our DDR5

8000 C38 kit only boosted the 285K by

fractions of a frame per second, which

is within error and variance, of course.

At 1440p, the 250 KP ran at 222 FPS

average without PvP and 226 with it. The

stack is overall preserved mostly with

the exception of the CPUs at the top. We

see the 9850 XOD get truncated by about

20 FPS as a result of the higher

resolution. There's not much change here

since the 250 KP is below the GP's

capabilities. So, let's continue. Dragon

Saga 2 is up next. In this one, the

Ultra 250 KP ran at 106 FPS average with

PPP and about 104 FPS without it.

They're roughly the same, but this

matches the trend of slight improvements

so far. In this case, that's 2.1%. The

lows also improved, although lows have

more variance in the measurements.

Taking the higher of the numbers, the

250KP ends up just ahead of the 14600K,

finally beating Intel's prior 5 series

CPU after the 245K lost to it

significantly. The 14600K led the 245K

by 8% and now the 250 KP has brought

Intel back to where it was in 2023, but

at least the price improved in a more

rapid way. The 250 KP also happens to

match the 5800 X2D this time with the

7800 X2D offering minimal uplift. The

9800 X2D still has a jump up, but the

250 KP is achieving most of the possible

performance in this test at a fraction

of the price of most of the other high

performers. The 9600X falls behind in

this one, down at 86 FPS average and

yielding a lead of 23% to the 250 KP. In

Cyberpunk 2077 with 1080p medium

settings, the 250 KP ran at 169.5 FPS

average against the 170.2 FPS average

results of the version with PvP

installed. The lows are comparable

between the two and functionally the

same. This is within margin of error and

test variance for all three metrics. So,

we'll use the faster of these to

compare. As with the others in this

game, X2D completely dominates the top

of the chart. Every X2D CPU except for

the 5500 X2D leads here with the 5700

XD, 5600 XD, and 5800 XD likewise ahead

of the 250K Plus. The 5800 XD just for

reference because so many people have

it, has a lead of 14% in average frame

rate with lows also improved. The 5600

XD isn't far behind that and had a more

similar MSRP for the people who lived

near enough to a microenter to buy one

at its launch. Again, something still

sold by AMD and globally. The 9600X ran

at 158 FPS average and gives up a lead

of 8% to the 255 KP with PPP. The 245K

is predictably also beaten by the 250 KP

in this instance by about 4.5%. The

14600K is down at 158 FPS average in

this game. So, this is an instance where

it was below the 245K already.

Increasing the graphics load by moving

to high, the top end drops from around

230 FPS to 214 FPS average. Now for the

9850 X2D, other than the top few, the

rest of the CPUs aren't affected much by

imposing more of a bottleneck at the top

end. The 250 KP with PPP ran at 159 FPS

average, outdoing the nonPVP test by 1

FPS average. Lows are within error of

each other. The 250 KP is closer to the

X2D parts now, landing about four to 5

FPS behind the 5600 XD and 5700 XD. The

5800 X2D leads by 11%. The 9800 XD's

lead is less impressive now that it's

limited on the GPU load, but it's still

31% ahead, which is still pretty good.

Uh, for a more appropriate comparison,

the 9600 X ran at 140 FPS average and

had lows at 87 and 72 FPS. The 250 KP

159 FPS average result is ahead of the

9600X by about 14% in this test. Just

for some references to older parts,

users on the 2600, 2700, 3600, 3700X

would see large uplifts by moving to any

of these newer CPUs from Intel or AMD.

It's not worth doing that unless you

really need the performance. Like if

you're actively thinking that you wish

your computer could do something

specific better, then sure, it might

make sense. But the big problem, as you

all know, is that this would require a

move to DDR5, and the RAM prices remain

crazy. So that continues to be the

limiting factor for most builds right

now. But the gains are at least large at

this point. F125 is up next. At 1080p,

F-125 positions the 250K Plus with PPP

at 253.2 FPS average, which is a

staggering, unbelievable 0.2 FPS faster

than without PPP. It truly is incredible

what Intel's technology can do. Their

ingenuity knows no bounds. I, for one,

am glad that I stayed up all night to

make sure we got this extra testing in.

The 250 KP is equal to the 9600X in this

game, although with slightly better 1%

lows. Overall, these two CPUs are the

same in performance, although one of

them goes into a socket that has a few

more years of support and presumably at

least one generation after it, and it's

not Intel. Intel's 250 KP is outdoing

the 265K by a few frames per second. It

doesn't match the 285K in this one,

which ran at 267 FPS average, and that's

both with our standard RAM and with the

DDR58000 T38 kit, which were tested with

an error of each other. The 285K with

our standard RAM outperforms the 250 KP

by 5.8%. The 5800 X2D also outdoes the

250 KP, but the 250 KP at least runs a

higher frame rate than the 5600 X2D,

although not by much, and then the 5700

X2D. The improvement over the 245K's 233

FPS average is 8 and a half% for the 250

KP with a similar lead over the 14600K.

In this one at least, Intel has outdone

its predecessor. Starfield is up next.

In this game, the 250K Plus ran at 147

FPS average, tying the 265K and also

producing better 1% and.1% lows. This

has the 250 KP just below the 5800 XD.

Installing PPP improved performance to

150 FPS average about a 2.2% 2% uplift

that allows the 250 KP to marginally

surpass the 14600K, although they are

within error of each other. The 285K

leads the 250 KP with PPP. This time at

2.8% ahead. Adding fast memory didn't do

much for the 285K in this test. In this

game, the 5600 XD and 5700 XD CPUs don't

do as disproportionately well as some

other games. They're still good, but the

250 KP ends up ahead of them. As you'd

expect, the 9000 XUD and its refresh end

up at the top of the chart, but remain

in a different price class. So, not

really an important comparison for this

one, just for reference. Intel has

managed to mostly invalidate its prior

200 series lineup with this $200 CPU

when it comes to this game at least.

However, we still have production

workloads to look at. We're moving on to

production tests, which is one of the

areas that Intel's newer CPUs, including

the prior 200 series, have done a little

bit better as compared to their gaming

results. Extra X3D cache also doesn't

offer much benefit for AMD in our

production test suite. So, this can

dislodge some of their top performing

gaming CPUs from the top of the charts.

In 7zip compression testing, we measure

performance by calculating how many

millions of instructions per second each

CPU can complete. The 250K Plus

completed 152.8,000 MIPS with our

initial run with PVP improving by 1.5%

over the original result. These results

put the 250 KP below the 265K, which has

a 3.2% advantage over the 250 KPPP.

It's the quadruple P or the double

double P or the double PP if you prefer.

AMD's 9600X is far down here, which

isn't news for the six core part in

production tests. Intel's KP PPP has a

71% lead over the 9600X in this

compression test and a 1 billion% lead

in the letter P. Of course, that's the

only thing that actually matters. Review

closed. Testing complete. You should buy

that one. This is however from a

production standpoint with actual

performance numbers starting to feel

like a mirror of 2017 AMD where

production was its only real bastion of

hope before it made gaming work again.

Maybe Intel's following that road map.

The 285K at 182,000 MIPS leads the 250

KP by 17.7% with AMD's 9950X CPUs at the

top. As for the 14600 K, Intel's new 250

KP finally manages to move the needle

beyond what we saw with the 245K,

which was mostly a disappointing result

previously. The 250 KP leads the 14600K

by 21% in this test. Decompression

testing is next. In this test, the 250K

Plus completed 146.8,000 MIPS, which

matched it with the 9800 X3D. The A Core

X3D CPUs have never been impressive in

this testing, as most of their benefit

again is in gaming. Enabling PVP pushed

it up to 151,000 MIPS, an improvement

from without PvP of 3.2%. The 14600K

only slightly trails the non- triple P

result at 138,000 MIPS. The 151,000 MIPS

250 KP result leads the 14600K by about

9% here. AMD's 9600X isn't as far down

as it was in compression, relatively

speaking, but the 250 KP still has a 45%

lead over the $190 AMD CPU. The 285K is

about 37% ahead of the 250 KP here. So,

we're interested to see how the 270 KP

does in our next review video. Blender

is next. For this, we run a tilebased

CPU render of one frame from our logo in

the intro animation of these videos, but

at a higher sample count and quality.

The 250 KP required 9.2 minutes to

complete the render under both test

conditions, that render time requirement

has its result reduced from the 14600K

by 25.8%. With a time requirement

reduction against the 245K at 22%. The

265K still leads the 250 KP unlike in

some of the game tests with thanks to

its core configuration. This is a highly

core dependent benchmark. So CPUs like

the 8 core X2D parts fall below

performance of higher thread count CPUs.

This is also why the six core 9600X

struggles in this one down at 16.4

minutes render time. That means the 250

KP required 44% less time than the

9600X. Adobe Photoshop testing via the

Puget Suite is next. This testing

measures performance in points by

running automated sequences of filters,

scales, warps, and other Photoshop

functions. Andy's top CPUs here are all

functionally the same in performance, or

they're close enough anyway, with no

real advantage between its 16 core parts

and some of its better eight core parts.

We don't have the 1400K retested in this

one anytime recently, and we were too

busy benchmarking Crimson Desert the

past few days to go back for it, but we

do have the 14700 K. The Fortune 700K

has about the same overall score as the

250 KP and the R57600 in this test,

which matches the results we had in this

test a little over a year ago in terms

of relative scaling. The 250 KP outdoes

the 285K by 4%, including with DDR5 8000

by 1.7%. It also bests the 245K by 6.7%

below which we can find the 5800 X3D and

other AM4 CPUs. As for AMD's 9600X,

which is the main price competition,

that's 14% ahead. AMD generally does

well in Photoshop testing via the Puget

Tweet right now, which is a flip from

several years ago when Intel used to be

the hold out in this test. Chromium code

compile testing and Windows is next,

measured in minutes to build the code

base. This chart has the 9950 X3D

comfortably at the top and benefiting

from its extra cache and higher core

count. The first Intel CPU on the chart

is the 285K, which credit to it, is

doing really well here at 106 minutes to

complete the compile. The 14700K is

Intel's next CPU behind that until we

retest the 14900K in this workload

anyway. And eventually the 250K Plus,

both with and without PPP, land at

around 133 minutes to complete the

compile. That means that these entries

benefit from a reduction in compile time

versus the 245K of 21%. The 285K and

265K both lead these CPUs though with

thanks to the clocks, cache, and cores

being put to good use here. AMD's gaming

class CPUs haven't been as competitive

in this test as Intel in a while now.

X3D isn't really built for this with a

cache helping less than more cores or

higher clocks on something like the 9800

X3D, which is slower than the 250K Plus.

Other notables include the 9600X down at

235 minutes or a full 100 minutes longer

to compile than the 250 KP. The 9600X is

limited in its abilities here with its

six core 12thread configuration. Da

Vinci Resolve testing is next. We use

Premiere internally as we've plugged in

a bunch of custom automation to it, but

Resolve is wellresected video editing

software for its non-subscription

approach and its better utilization of

hardware for rendering. This is an

experimental chart. We label these

clearly to disclose when our confidence

threshold is lower than it is for other

tests. We're new to testing Da Vinci

Resolve, so to be transparent about it,

that means there's more risk of an issue

with the testing process or the data in

this chart than there is in other

charts. We run experimental charts with

disclosures because we need to begin

gaining experience publishing it in

order to eventually gain the confidence

to roll it into the full suite. So, we

put these experimental charts out for

the community to offer suggestions for

improvement so that we can slowly work

it into the full reviews with our usual

high confidence. With that clearly

disclosed in this one, the 250KP scored

12,993 points, putting it below the

265K. The 250 KP improves on the 245K by

12% and improves on the 9600X by 16.8%.

The 5600 XD and 5700 XD give us some

pretty valuable information here.

Because the power budget is the same,

but the 5700 XD has two more cores. We

already know that the 5700 XD therefore

spreads the same power over more cores,

resulting in a clock speed deficit as

compared to the 5600 XD. Because the

5600 XD technically outperforms it here.

That means that in this test at least,

Resolve seems to weigh clock speed at

least somewhat moderately. In other

words, it's not as simple as two more

cores at lower clocks is better. In this

case, two fewer cores at higher clocks

is better. It also appears to make use

of the memory change in the 285K where

we gained 7.4% to 14,383 points from

13,398 points previously. This is a much

larger gain than we saw in most other

tests including gaming which typically

is more sensitive to memory and in

particular timings improvement. Now for

our power test, this time since the team

was busy on all the case and game

testing last week, we are keeping it

pretty simple. For this testing, we set

up a PMD2 as an interposer between the

power supply and the test bench. So,

there's an external capturing device. It

captures all the power delivered to the

bench because the motherboard we're

using splits some of the 24 pin power to

the CPU, which is abnormal. We take the

ATX 12volt power, the EPS 12volt power,

add them together, but we subtract out

the PCIe slot, which we do by isolating

the PCIe slot on a riser card strictly

for this testing. So, that card is not

there for the performance testing. And

then we have some overhead for losses

for VRM efficiency and other 12-volt

parts on the board. It's not perfect,

but it works pretty well. This test

shows power consumption of the 250 KP

during an allcore Blender workload,

which will be the worst case power draw

scenario for the CPU. The external

capture utilities using the method

described have us at about 186 watts for

the CPU. VRM efficiency losses and

miscellaneous board components. That's

higher than TDP, but that's also

expected when taking external

measurements. For reference, a CPU

package power measurement using hardware

info software yields around 140 to 150

watts in the same test. We also measured

some games as those scenarios tend to

draw significantly lower power than an

allcore workload. We'll show just one

because it kind of encapsulates all of

them. At F125 testing, you can see the

loading screens and cycles with each of

these spikes and dips. The peaks for

externally captured power consumption

landed at 171 watts with the valleys at

39 watts. During low activity during the

game itself, such as around the 200

second to 270 second marks where we're

driving around the track, we saw around

100 watts from external capture. CV

package power was closer to 70 watts

range via software readings. Our

traditional power tests are complicated.

They typically take two days of full

time just to process the data and

arrange it for performance per watt on

charge. Plus, we need to do about a week

of testing to get everything updated.

So, for now, we'll leave this one here

just because of the time, but we may

revisit it later. Overall, compared to

Intel's original 200 series launch for

the 285, 265, and 245K CPUs, this is a

lot better. The original launch was

disastrous. Total mess. The price was

just astronomical for some of those

CPUs. I mean, the 285K one was like $600

plus or minus a little bit. That was

crazy. Not didn't really make sense. It

was also regressive from the 14th gen.

So, Intel that launch pretty bad.

Uh, this one at least looks better. It

is unfortunately arriving pretty late in

the cycle for these motherboards in that

these are probably the last or some of

the last CPUs that you'll see in the

platform. Maybe they'll do one more

refresh or something, but it looks like

this is probably the end of the line for

the 1851 motherboards. And hopefully

whatever Intel does next, they factor in

longevity better because I mean AMD

basically put out CPUs for AM4 for like

10 years, which is unbelievably cool.

And that's great for the end user. It's

uh a lot of people, yes, they like to

build a whole new system. Every time you

build a system, you get a new

motherboard, too. But especially times

like now where whatever the price of the

CPU is, it almost doesn't matter because

the price that controls the build is the

memory. And so in times like now, if you

can stay in a platform and kind of like

nest in it and then just swap CPUs,

that's great. That's good for everybody

except maybe the motherboard makers. But

ultimately for these new CPUs, the big

move here for Intel is the price. They

did reconfigure them. So you've got more

cores on the 250KP than you did for say

the 245K. But it's also cheaper where

Intel's 245K was over $300 originally.

And the 285K, which is now often beaten

or tied in gaming with the 250 KP, is

again $530 to $560. So the 250KP being a

$200 CPU that's actually reasonable in

gaming as a standalone port and still

pretty damn good, actually competitive

with AMD, better than it in a lot of

price for price situations in

non-gaming. That's good news. Intel's

14600K gives it some trouble in some

places which does make it look a little

bad sometimes because now we're getting

a couple generations old. But in the

very least, we're just happy to see

literally anything even remotely

affordable in this market because it has

been really bad for a long time now. And

uh you know it's it's tough because the

memory is still kind of the pricing of

it still kind of ruining everything. But

at like in a total vacuum price has come

down and their performance has gone up.

And that's what Intel needs to do if

they want to start competing. And I am

I'm starting to get some of the 2017

2018 era AMD 10002000 Ryzen vibes from

this where Intel uh is starting to

establish a bit more of a foothold at

the lower price classes in non-gaming

performance in particular. It's not to

say they're not good in gaming also, but

uh specifically in production workloads,

they're starting to establish a foothold

there, which is how AMD got back into it

with the 10002000 series where you they

were kind of okay in gaming, but they

they really set up their foothold in

production. And it almost looks like

Intel's going that direction right now.

So, could be pretty interesting in the

next few years if you can still buy

sticks of memory.

But, but we're reviewing just the CPU

today. So, a few additional notes. The

2DK Plus does have an optional binary

optimization tool, but again, it only

works in two games in our test suite and

12 games in total. Of the two in our

test suite, even Intel itself is only

claiming a 2% uplift for one of them.

After getting all the charts edited and

into the review, while Vitalia was

working on cutting it, I did go back

through and run the two games for

Cyberpunk and Final Fantasy 14 with the

binary tool uh just to see. And I mean,

it was what Intel said. It was like

basically 0% in Cyberpunk where the

differences were within runto run

variance. So it's a wash. It doesn't do

anything in other words or at least

nothing that matters. And then in Final

Fantasy it was like max a couple

percentage points. So not really a

change there for either. As for the 200S

boost option for say the 285K, we ran

that CPU back through as well in the

final stages here of editing just to

collect some AB. It improves in some

cases. So if you were to factor this

into the earlier charts, it'd sometimes

shift the 285K to par with a 250 KP

rather than a slight loss. That said,

our methodological or philosophical

approach to reviews is to define some

kind of rigid constraint somewhere

because otherwise you just get into

these uh judgment calls of how far do

you want to push that arms race? Because

if you're going to enable stuff that's a

separate BIOS setting, then you also

need to consider that for say AMD where

now you need to start considering PBO

and then to what extent do you consider

overclocking on the other one. So, uh,

anyway, we did the numbers at least just

to have them. But that'll be it for this

one. Um, yeah, you've got the numbers.

Hopefully that helps you make a decision

if I don't know. I I'm really curious

like genuinely I am curious how many

people are in the market to build a

computer right now. Um, because the

disillusionment it doesn't come from

Intel or AMD uh in the CPU side. It

really does come from the memory for me

where it's just every time I look at the

RAM prices, I mean, it's bad. It's like

actually bad. It's not sensationalist.

It's just it is actually just really bad

for building a computer. Uh, but there's

still parts coming out that are

interesting. So, like I said earlier,

we're keeping this review really simple

by our standards. So, a lot of charts

there. You've got enough to work with.

The 270 KP will be coming up next for

us. And I'll keep an eye on comments and

stuff to see if there's any specific

requests for additional testing that we

could do. Um, but we wanted to just kind

of make this one straightforward for us.

Uh, because I need to sleep and because

also just on the team side too,

everyone's been pushing really hard.

We've had a killer week for content.

There's some really cool stuff up there.

Discord alternatives was awesome. The

DRAM cartel documentary was really fun

to work on. Then the knock to a review

on the case technical side was also we

introduced some new technical testing

there. So, a lot of fun stuff. Animation

error actually was a big one. Simulation

time error made its actual real debut

outside of our white paper piece in

Crimson Desert. So, that was really

exciting, too. Anyway, I'm thrilled with

the stuff we're putting out. But, uh,

yeah, I'm going to I'm going to head out

and go sleep. And 270 KP is next. If you

have specific requests for additional

testing once I come back in with more

than one hour of sleep, then uh we will

look at potentially doing that. So, let

us know. But thank you for watching.

Subscribe for more as always. Go to

store.gamersex.net to support us

directly on patreon.com/gamersex.

And we will see who next the