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 $215 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
✅Delivers 10.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 33.8 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $600 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 9 288V across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 20,280).
❌216.7% higher power demand at 95W vs 30W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 288V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 9 288V

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 30W instead of 95W, a 65W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.8 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($600 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Core i7-9700K

2018

Core Ultra 9 288V

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $215 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
✅Delivers 10.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 33.8 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $600 MSRP).
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.3% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 30W instead of 95W, a 65W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1151 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 9 288V across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,397 vs 20,280).
❌216.7% higher power demand at 95W vs 30W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1151 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 9 288V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 33.8 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($600 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 9 288V better than Core i7-9700K?

Yes. Core Ultra 9 288V is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 28.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 40.9% 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 9 288V is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 28.3% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 9 288V is the better fit. You are getting 40.9% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core Ultra 9 288V is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Core Ultra 9 288V is 55.8% more expensive on MSRP at $600 MSRP versus $385 MSRP, and it gives you a 28.3% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-9700K only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that is mostly used-market pricing on an obsolete 2018 platform. Even with 10.6% better value on paper (37.4 vs 33.8 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a very cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

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

Core Ultra 9 288V 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 9 288V Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
1080p
low	308 FPS	278 FPS
medium	278 FPS	246 FPS
high	231 FPS	207 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	178 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	235 FPS
medium	221 FPS	187 FPS
high	178 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	135 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	163 FPS
medium	140 FPS	132 FPS
high	108 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	89 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 288V

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
1080p
low	360 FPS	481 FPS
medium	321 FPS	383 FPS
high	291 FPS	337 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	298 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	426 FPS
medium	282 FPS	352 FPS
high	258 FPS	312 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	267 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	311 FPS
medium	221 FPS	269 FPS
high	208 FPS	251 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	218 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 288V

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
1080p
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	507 FPS
high	360 FPS	507 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	507 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	507 FPS
high	360 FPS	507 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	477 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	473 FPS
high	360 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	349 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 288V

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
1080p
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	507 FPS
high	360 FPS	507 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	507 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	507 FPS
high	360 FPS	507 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	507 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	507 FPS
medium	360 FPS	507 FPS
high	360 FPS	496 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	433 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Core Ultra 9 288V

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Core Ultra 9 288V

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 9 288V

The Core Ultra 9 288V 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 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 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): 30 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 20,280 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-9700K and Core Ultra 9 288V share an identical 8-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 5.1 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 288V — a 4% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 9 288V (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Lunar Lake (2024) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Core Ultra 9 288V's 20,280 — a 33.9% lead for the Core Ultra 9 288V. Both processors carry 12 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 8
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz	5.1 GHz+4%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+9%	3.3 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	20,280+41%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	9,300
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,800
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	10,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core Ultra 9 288V 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 on the Core Ultra 9 288V — the Core Ultra 9 288V supports 22.2% 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 32 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 8 (Core Ultra 9 288V) — the Core i7-9700K offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and SoC (Core Ultra 9 288V).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
Socket	LGA1151	FCBGA2833
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	LPDDR5X-8533+25%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+300%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+100%	8

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) vs true (Core Ultra 9 288V). Both include integrated graphics — UHD Graphics 630 (Core i7-9700K) and Intel Arc 140V (Core Ultra 9 288V) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Core Ultra 9 288V
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	Intel Arc 140V
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 9 288V debuted at $600. On MSRP ($385 vs $600), the Core i7-9700K is $215 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 33.8 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 9 288V — making the Core i7-9700K the 10.1% better value option.