PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $65 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 256V across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 19,579).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 43.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
❌458.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 256V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 256V

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.7% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 16.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 95W, a 78W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌
16.9% HIGHER MSRP
$450 MSRPvs$385 MSRP

Core i7-9700K

2018

Core Ultra 7 256V

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $65 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.7% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Delivers 16.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 95W, a 78W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 256V across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 19,579).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 37.4 vs 43.5 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
❌458.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 256V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌
16.9% HIGHER MSRP
$450 MSRPvs$385 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 256V better than Core i7-9700K?

Yes. Core Ultra 7 256V is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 22.7% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 36% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 256V is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 22.7% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 256V is the better fit. You are getting 36% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Ultra 7 256V is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 256V is 16.9% more expensive on MSRP at $450 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 22.7% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 16.4% better value on MSRP (43.5 vs 37.4 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 7 256V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2018), a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 and DDR5 instead of LGA1151, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/8. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Core Ultra 7 256V Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	308 FPS	272 FPS
medium	278 FPS	243 FPS
high	231 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	176 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	230 FPS
medium	221 FPS	185 FPS
high	178 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	161 FPS
medium	140 FPS	130 FPS
high	108 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	360 FPS	214 FPS
medium	321 FPS	179 FPS
high	291 FPS	161 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	142 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	182 FPS
medium	282 FPS	157 FPS
high	258 FPS	145 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	125 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	139 FPS
medium	221 FPS	124 FPS
high	208 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	102 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	489 FPS
high	360 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	489 FPS
high	360 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	468 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	462 FPS
high	360 FPS	404 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	336 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 7 256V

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
1080p
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	489 FPS
high	360 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	489 FPS
high	360 FPS	489 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	489 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	489 FPS
medium	360 FPS	489 FPS
high	360 FPS	480 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	418 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 7 256V

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Core Ultra 7 256V

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Core Ultra 7 256V

The Core Ultra 7 256V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 19,579 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-9700K and Core Ultra 7 256V share an identical 8-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 4.8 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 256V — a 2.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses Lunar Lake (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Core Ultra 7 256V's 19,579 — a 30.5% lead for the Core Ultra 7 256V. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 8
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+2%	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+64%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2.5 MB (per core)+900%
Process	14 nm	3 nm-79%
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Lunar Lake (2024)
PassMark	14,397	19,579+36%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	10,065
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,658
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	11,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 7 256V uses FCBGA2833 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2666 on the Core i7-9700K versus LPDDR5x 8533 MT/s on the Core Ultra 7 256V — the Core Ultra 7 256V supports 200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-9700K supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 8 (Core Ultra 7 256V) — the Core i7-9700K offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and Lunar Lake (Core Ultra 7 256V).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
Socket	LGA1151	FCBGA2833
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	LPDDR5x 8533 MT/s+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+700%	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+100%	8

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i7-9700K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs true (Core Ultra 7 256V). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics 630 (Core i7-9700K) and Intel Arc Graphics 140V (Core Ultra 7 256V) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop, Core Ultra 7 256V targets Mobile.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 7 256V
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Desktop	Mobile

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 256V debuted at $450. On MSRP ($385 vs $450), the Core i7-9700K is $65 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 43.5 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 256V — making the Core Ultra 7 256V the 15.1% better value option.