Gaming Performance: (A-D)
We are testing only at 1080p to isolate performance. We are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition video card with driver version 595.97. All games are generally run in their highest settings, though some of the games have had to be lowered to “High” settings so that we could get a more meaningful CPU-limited test. We are running at 1080p native resolution, and no Ray Tracing is turned on in the games that have the option.
Importantly, we are using ALL manual run-throughs for every game here except two. For Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 we are using the built-in multiplayer benchmark, and for DOOM: The Dark Ages, we are also using the “Reckoning” benchmark. However, we are using Frameview to caputure 1% Lows in these games. For every other game, we are using long manual run-throughs in-game of actual gameplay. We are also recording AVG FPS and 1% Lows and reporting them in the graphs. We have tested a total of 14 games, with 7 on this page, and 7 on the next.
In all of our graphs to follow, the bars are arranged from the fastest MT/s speed down, so 8800MT/s is on top, with 7200MT/s on the bottom, and this arrangement is locked in independent of the performance shown; they are not arranged by result, but rather the DDR5 memory speed.
Alan Wake 2
As we start off our gaming, there is a clear trend of results that will follow. In Alan Wake 2, the 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 performed the best, and did allow a slight advantage over 7200MT/s by 0.6%. What was more surprising was that the 8400MT/s and 8800MT/s CUDIMM at CL40 and CL42 lagged behind on performance, and were actually slower than 7200MT/s at CL38. Even the 1% Lows were behind by 1FPS. The 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 was 2% faster than 8800MT/s CL42.
Battlefield 6
In Battlefield 6, the 7600MT/s CL38 UDIMM was the fastest, allowing 1.2% more performance over the 7200MT/s UDIMM CL38. We saw the 8400MT/s and 8800MT/s CUDIMM memory lag behind, with 8800MT/s CL42 trailing the most, with the 1% Lows 4FPS behind the 7600MT/s.
Call of Duty: Black Ops 7
This was only one out of two games where the 8800MT/s CUDIMM CL42 came out on top, and at 220FPS it was just barely above 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38, but it was 2% faster than 7200MT/s UDIMM CL38. However, the 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 did have an advantage in the 1% Lows, which were 3% faster than the 8800MT/s RAM and 6% faster than 7200MT/s.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33
In Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, the 7600MT/s CL38 UDIMMs took the cake again at 4% faster than the 7200MT/s CL38, and beat the 8400MT/s and 8800MT/s. The 8400MT/s and 8800MT/s had a regression in performance, despite the memory bandwidth, due to the timings; it ended up coming out even with the 7200MT/s lower timing RAM.
Crimson Desert
We are testing with the 1.05.00 patch in Crimson Desert. Once again, the 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 RAM speed is advantageous, with the highest result, beating 7200MT/s by 1%. Interestingly, the 8400MT/s at CL40 hangs in there with 7600MT/s CL38, but 8800MT/s has a regression.
Cyberpunk 2077
In Cyberpunk 2077, it is clear that 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 has an advantage with 1.3% more performance over the 7200MT/s CL38. The 8800MT/s CUDIMM memory is the slowest, and the 1% Lows reflect that as well. The 7600MT/s memory is 3% faster than the 8800MT/s CUDIMM CL42.
Doom: The Dark Ages
The 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 memory is advantageous in this game, with some pretty stark differences to the 1% Lows as well. The 7600MT/s UDIMM CL38 memory is 3% faster than 7200MT/s at CL38 on AVG and 7% faster on 1% Lows, which is a great gain to 1% Lows. The 8400MT/s and 8800MT/s RAM is slower than the 7600MT/s with lower timings, and interestingly, 8800MT/s matches 7200MT/s at lower timings. Compared to the lowest performance with the 8400MT/s CUDIMM RAM, the 7600MT/s UDIMM RAM is 4% faster on AVG and 10% faster with 1% Lows.
Discussion (12 replies)
Join Discussion →Pretty much what I expected to see to be honest.
Try buying some???
Need a loan.....LoL
Would have been interesting to have some "run of the mill" 6000MT/s RAM like alot of folks use (because its affordable) to compare as a baseline......?
Some serious hot deals on Arrow plus combos right now. AIOs, Lego Batman, PSUs, boards. Also, 270K is below MSRP and the second best seller on Amazon today. Been a long time since a Intel CPU cracked the top 5.
Just wanted to point out that actual overclockers may take offense at there being no information available on the values for NGU, D2D and Ring. If those were kept at default then the memory overclocks are almost pointless due to there being a bottleneck in the flow of data between the CPU and RAM sticks. For anything over 8000 MT/s, NGU multiplier needs to be 34, D2D should ideally be 35 or higher and ring from 42 to 46 would be ideal. It's unfortunate that Intel did not make it so that these values are optimized automatically as RAM speed is increased.
My own 245KF was able to do NGU 34, D2D 35 (latest BIOS kept it at 30 despite setting a higher value) and ring 42. Sadly, the CPU is out of the socket of the mobo as I was trying to sell it so any benchmark data I have is inaccessible at the moment unfortunately.
Regarding the RAM timings, the sticks should be able to 7200C34 and 7600C36. The 8000+ timings seem to be ok.
Just did a web search on this, have yet to find a review that did the NGU/D2D/Ring overclocking, ect. Currently have my 265KF at 70.1ns latency. Wondering if 270K can get it any lower, or if I should even waste the $$?
The only low latency Arrow Lake champ right now is 250K/KF.
You may gain ~10 fps plus future APO/iBOT game/application support with 250KF.
There's unfortunately a rather glaring problem with the testing here which is comparing a kit using 16GB modules to one using 24GB. Subtimings are important and almost every single higher capacity module has higher cell refresh timings than an equivalent speed/primary latency lower capacity. That is absolutely the case here which throws off the results and in turn the conclusion. If one is trying to compare speed and primary timings the kit capacities really need to be the same.
What kinda latency are you getting with your setup??
y-cruncher score comparison 6000C42 vs. 8200C38 (NGU is 32 or 34, D2D is above 30 and Ring is 42)
6000C42:
8200C38:
Another multicore scaling benchmark here: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/arrow-lake-builders-thread.2622775/post-41610100
I haven't really done a lot of optimization as real life kept getting in the way. I did replace a 265K with the 270K Plus and they both performed within margin of error of each other when it came to latency using the same settings. I imagine best case scenario for latency with ARL is going to be based on bins more than SKU.
From what little tweaking I've done NGU seems to make a lot less difference than D2D. Subtimings on memory can also make a pretty big difference. The board I'm using has had some weird issues with DRAM timings so once I found stable numbers I just left it, but this is high up on my list for when I get time.
Skatterbencher puts out my favorite writeups (and also has videos) for CPU tweaking: https://skatterbencher.com/2025/06/18/skatterbencher-87-core-ultra-7-265k-overclocked-to-5700-mhz/
They've done more recent ones with the 270/250 as well.
Ok, upgraded to a 270k, and another new motherboard, since I bent socket pins (Rookie move, first time ever...) Proc clocks almost exactly like my 265KF, 56P core, 49 E core (265KF was 56/50. 41 cache, 33 NGU/D2D, Running 48gb Kingston Renegade 8400 @ 38-49-49-56 timings, same 71.3 ms latency as with 265KF as well. Seems to run cooler, and extra 4 cores. XTU benchmark went up nicely, as well as my 3DMark bench's. Have yet to run PCMark bench yet. All in all, runs well in a dead end platform, should keep me happy for @ least 4 yrs i'd hope.