Table of Contents
Introduction
With the new Intel Core™ Ultra 200S Plus processors, the 270K Plus and 250K Plus, Intel has advanced the officially supported memory speeds further. The one-DIMM-per-channel configurations and CUDIMMs allow the new Core Ultra Plus processors to support memory speeds up to 7200 MT/s. This is 800 MT/s faster than the non-Plus 200S processors and 1600 MT/s faster than AMD’s Ryzen™ 9000 series. But is high-speed RAM necessary for these processors to stay competitive?
One of Intel’s strengths is memory controller performance. While this often leads to strong overclocking potential, Intel now leverages it to improve the official memory speed of its desktop processors. While enthusiasts may be interested in maximum potential speeds, we advise professionals to focus on in-spec potential to ensure stability during critical tasks. Hence, we are pleased to see Intel officially validate high-speed memory, allowing users to enjoy improved performance without compromising reliability.
However, non-overclocked DIMMs must comply with JEDEC specifications. For desktop memory modules, speeds of 6400 MT/s or higher require CUDIMMS. Typical UDIMMs with an added clock driver must meet JEDEC 6400 standards, whereas JEDEC 7200 CUDIMMs are newly emerging. Given the current memory market, obtaining high-speed, non-overclocked RAM is increasingly challenging. We aim to evaluate if the new 270K Plus and 250K Plus processors remain valuable with slower memory. This article does not cover downclocked memory configurations, such as those with over two DIMMs, which reduce maximum frequency from 6400 or 7200 MT/s to 4800 MT/s.
For those familiar with our Content Creation review, the setup here is similar: Intel and AMD platforms with ASUS ProArt motherboards and NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 5080 GPUs. Windows, BIOSes, and drivers were up to date at testing time. We kept processors at stock settings, disabling overclocking features like ASUS MCE, MLB, and AMD’s PBO, with Intel processors on the default “Performance” power plan. Windows security settings remained at their default (enabled), Intel iBOT was not enabled, and APO was activated, but no tested applications showed performance improvements from it.
In initial testing, RAM was locked to the CPU-supported maximum at JEDEC timings: 5600 for AMD and 6400 or 7200 for Intel, depending on the model. We then tested the Intel processors at JEDEC 5600—the maximum supported frequency without CUDIMMs, aligning with AMD’s Ryzen processors.
Beginning with media and entertainment, we assessed 7200 MT/s RAM’s impact on Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, After Effects, and DaVinci Resolve. The Core Ultra Plus processors showed a small overall difference of about 3% between 5600 and 7200 MT/s, greater than the 1% difference for non-Plus models between 5600 and 6400 MT/s. At 5600 MT/s, the Core Ultra Plus processors still outperform the non-Plus parts: the 270K Plus is about 2% faster than the 265K and 285K, while the 250K Plus is about 5% faster than the 245K. The 285K vs. 270K Plus comparison highlights the benefits of changes in E-core and die-to-die frequencies.
Dropping from 7200 MT/s to 5600 MT/s on the 270K Plus alters the comparison of 9950X3D and 270K on overall score average, though no individual tests show this effect. The margin between them narrows, but application rankings remain consistent. Premiere Pro and parts of DaVinci Resolve are most influenced by memory frequency, while After Effects and Photoshop show little change. Lightroom appears more sensitive to memory frequency, suggesting photographers lacking 7200 MT/s memory should consider Ryzen processors over Intel CPUs.
Game Dev – Unreal Engine & Visual Studio
In game development tests, including Unreal Engine’s shader compiling and lighting building, and engine compiling in Visual Studio, both Core Ultra 200S Plus processors experienced a 5% performance drop from 7200 to 5600 MT/s RAM. Non-Plus models saw a smaller 1-3% drop from 6400 to 5600 MT/s, as expected. Despite this, Plus processors still hold a performance advantage. At lower memory speed, the 270K Plus remains 4% faster than the 285K and 6% faster than the 265K, with comparisons to AMD CPUs remaining stable. The 250K Plus is still about 10% faster than the 245K despite narrowing differences.
In subtests, we again found lighting builds showed negligible scaling with RAM speed. Code compilation was somewhat affected, reducing the 270K Plus