Intel's new 200K Plus chips support ultra-fast DRAM out of the box but as my tests show, there's little benefit for most PC gamers in using warp-speed stuff
Unless you've got a very specific setup that involves an Intel CPU, an RTX 5090, a 1080p monitor, and potato-quality graphics settings.
Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
If you've been keeping up with Intel's latest processors, you'll know that with its Core Ultra 200S chips, it set a new standard for speedy DRAM support. Starting at 4,800 MT/s with the 12th Gen Core range, each new series of processors has steadily increased the speed of the memory controller, reaching 6,400 MT/s with Arrow Lake. Now it's gone a step further with the Core Ultra 200S Plus CPUs: a frankly ridiculous 7,200 MT/s.
These are all 'default' data transfer rates, i.e. without overclocking the memory controller, but as any PC gamer knows, most chips these days happily support DRAM modules that have XMP or EXPO profiles. These are charts of settings for the memory chip and integrated controller that let you push things even further.
However, as I've shown earlier this year, the clock speed of DDR5 doesn't make a huge difference in games, and when the Core Ultra 200S chips first appeared, ultra-fast DRAM barely made any difference at all. Even DDR5-8400.
Article continues belowSo, is that still the case with the new Core Ultra 200S Plus processors? To find out, while collecting data for my review of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, I used two different memory kits: a 32 GB set of Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL30 and a set of G.Skill Trident Z5 DDR5-7200 CL34, also 32 GB in capacity.
As for the rest of the test hardware that matters, the motherboard was an MSI MEG Z890 Ace, and the graphics card was a Zotac GeForce RTX 4070. Oh, and I retested the Core Ultra 9 285K, just to see if anything had changed since it appeared in October 2024.
Game | Settings | DDR5-6000 CL30 (avg fps, 1% low fps) | DDR5-7200 CL34 (avg fps, 1% low fps) | Difference |
Cyberpunk 2077 - 285K | 1080p, RT Ultra, DLSS Balanced | 118, 95 | 119, 97 | +1%, +2% |
Cyberpunk 2077 - 270K Plus | 1080p, RT Ultra, DLSS Balanced | 119, 98 | 121, 99 | +2%, +1% |
Baldur's Gate 3 - 285K | 1080p, Ultra | 108, 67 | 110, 69 | +2%, +3% |
Baldur's Gate 3 - 270K Plus | 1080p, Ultra | 113, 66 | 117, 71 | +4%, +8% |
Homeworld 3 - 285K | 1080p, Epic + High Res Translucency | 97, 53 | 97, 55 | 0%, +4% |
Homeworld 3 - 270K Plus | 1080p, Epic + High Res Translucency | 101, 57 | 101, 58 | 0%, +2% |
Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition - 285K | 1080p, High | 149, 79 | 148, 79 | -1%, 0% |
Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition - 270K Plus | 1080p, High | 143, 79 | 144, 80 | +1%, +1% |
Total War: Warhammer 3 - 285K | 1080p, High | 173, 139 | 173, 139 | 0%, 0% |
Total War: Warhammer 3 - 270K Plus | 1080p, High | 173, 139 | 174, 141 | 1%, 1% |
It's only five games' worth of data, but I think it's fair to say that faster DRAM doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, as anything under 5% can be considered to be nothing more than a margin of error in the test runs.
Well, certainly not in four of the games I tested, and absolutely not for 285K. However, the 270K Plus did run Baldur's Gate 3 up to 4% faster on average, DDR5-7200 vs DDR5-6000, and the 1% low frames rate picked up a healthy 8% boost.
Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.
The thing is, DDR5-7200 is clocked 20% higher than DDR5-6000, so why aren't we seeing that kind of performance improvement? The answer to that lies in the fact that there are a lot of stages in the processing of a single frame, from beginning to end, and the speed at which all of this is done is primarily limited by the slowest element in the sequence.
If that's not related to the system memory in any way, then no amount of extra DRAM speed will make a jot of difference. However, some elements are related to memory, even if it's not immediately obvious.
Gaming performance
Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p RT Ultra + DLSS Balanced)
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 119 Avg FPS, 98 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 118 Avg FPS, 95 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 117 Avg FPS, 90 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 111 Avg FPS, 67 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 112 Avg FPS, 76 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 99 Avg FPS, 59 1% Low FPS |
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 113 Avg FPS, 66 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 108 Avg FPS, 67 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 102 Avg FPS, 63 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 147 Avg FPS, 84 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 146 Avg FPS, 76 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 94 Avg FPS, 56 1% Low FPS |
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 101 Avg FPS, 57 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 97 Avg FPS, 53 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 95 Avg FPS, 53 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 101 Avg FPS, 54 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 117 Avg FPS, 55 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 91 Avg FPS, 49 1% Low FPS |
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 143 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 149 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 142 Avg FPS, 78 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 148 Avg FPS, 91 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 148 Avg FPS, 91 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 146 Avg FPS, 77 1% Low FPS |
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 173 Avg FPS, 139 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 173 Avg FPS, 139 1% Low FPS |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 174 Avg FPS, 136.9 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 150 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 152 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPS |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 151 Avg FPS, 79 1% Low FPS |
| Product | Value |
|---|---|
| Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus | 20252 CPU index score, 17548 Overall index score |
| Intel Core Ultra 9 285K | 19293 CPU index score, 17430 Overall index score |
| Intel Core Ultra 7 265K | 18822 CPU index score, 17377 Overall index score |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D | 17099 CPU index score, 17084 Overall index score |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D | 16116 CPU index score, 17052 Overall index score |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9700X | 13239 CPU index score, 16437 Overall index score |
For example, if a thread instruction demands a piece of data that isn't present in any of the CPU's caches, then the chip will have to request it from system memory. This is why AMD's X3D processors are generally not sensitive to DRAM speed, because they have whopping amounts of L3 cache.
However, the 270K Plus and 285K have exactly the same amount of L1, L2, and L3 caches, so why is the new chip running better than its very closely related cousin in Baldur's Gate 3?
The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that Intel increased the internal clock speeds for its Arrow Lake refresh. The 270K Plus' Die-to-Die (D2D) and Next Generation Uncore (NGU) clocks are 43% and 15% higher, respectively, compared to the 285K's.
That means the 270K Plus is able to shift data between and inside the tiles, which make up the whole processor, a little bit faster and with a reduction in latencies.
Out of everything I tested, Baldur's Gate 3 is by far the most cache/memory dependent, which is why the Ryzen 7 9800X3D massively outperforms any of Intel's processors in this game. Homeworld 3 is too, though to a far lesser extent. The other games care more for a processor's IPS rate (instructions per second) than anything else.
The exception to this would be when you've got something like an RTX 5090 but you're using it to render low-resolution, low-graphics esports games to get the highest possible frame rate. In those situations, speedy memory is likely to make a difference, but then again, you're probably using a 9800X3D too. If so, then warp-speed DDR5 won't make a difference.
Buying ultra-fast DRAM for your gaming PC only makes sense if the rest of the setup is such that a game's performance is entirely limited by system memory performance. If it's not, then just save your pennies and stick to the cheapest set you can find that isn't rock-bottom slow. Then again, DDR5-7200 isn't vastly more expensive than DDR5-6000.
With regards to the two DRAM kits I used, you'll currently need to hand over $510 at Amazon for the Corsair set and $550 at Amazon for the G.Skill stuff. If you don't mind a slightly higher CAS latency (and it really won't affect games that much), you can get 32 GB of DDR5-6000 CL36 for $370 at Newegg, or $430 at Newegg for a set of RGB-less DDR5-7200.
You'd expect DDR5-7200 to be monstrously expensive in today's global memory crisis, but since AMD's Ryzen chips are happiest with DDR5-6000, there's far less demand for the super-speedy stuff. So much so that you can pick up a 32 GB kit of DDR5-8000 for $540 at Newegg. Not that you should, of course.
Anyway, I digress. Summary time. With each new generation of processors, Intel has improved the support for ever-faster DRAM, without recourse to overclocking the controller. Top-speed memory modules aren't necessarily that much more expensive than 'normal' speed stuff. However, faster DRAM barely makes any difference in games, unless they're very DRAM-dependent, so it's not worth buying.
As the Talking Heads song goes, same as it ever was.

1. Best gaming laptop: Razer Blade 16
2. Best gaming PC: HP Omen 35L
3. Best handheld gaming PC: Lenovo Legion Go S SteamOS ed.
4. Best mini PC: Minisforum AtomMan G7 PT
5. Best VR headset: Meta Quest 3

Nick, gaming, and computers all first met in the early 1980s. After leaving university, he became a physics and IT teacher and started writing about tech in the late 1990s. That resulted in him working with MadOnion to write the help files for 3DMark and PCMark. After a short stint working at Beyond3D.com, Nick joined Futuremark (MadOnion rebranded) full-time, as editor-in-chief for its PC gaming section, YouGamers. After the site shutdown, he became an engineering and computing lecturer for many years, but missed the writing bug. Cue four years at TechSpot.com covering everything and anything to do with tech and PCs. He freely admits to being far too obsessed with GPUs and open-world grindy RPGs, but who isn't these days?
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.

