{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaa3dbwdc7zq6nrfbw3kamzg67reu4strlgfh4oauf223vrpqtraq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ajcrkmnlj6rxdk7rltijv227/app.bsky.feed.post/3mly7z25tspt2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreibwjezao76gw4ewcp2pfyk3uci3teq7vv5ehzirddalw4ruv6zdla"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 67877
  },
  "path": "/pc-components/cpus/the-core-ultra-7-270k-was-too-good-so-intel-scrapped-the-flagship-core-ultra-9-290k-plus-benchmarks-of-the-290k-prototype-find-slim-2-percent-faster-performance-in-gaming-and-applications",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-16T15:06:54.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.tomshardware.com",
  "tags": [
    "CPUs",
    "PC Components"
  ],
  "textContent": "The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, which never came out, was only marginally faster than the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which explains why Intel ultimately chose not to release it. On average across 1080p and 1440p games, it's only about 2% faster, and in synthetic benchmarks and productivity workloads, it's less than 4% ahead.",
  "title": "The Core Ultra 7 270K was too good, so Intel scrapped the flagship Core Ultra 9 290K Plus — benchmarks of the 290K prototype find slim 2% faster performance in gaming and applications"
}