Core Ultra 5 225T vs EPYC 7451

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 Ultra 5 225T

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics (16EU), while EPYC 7451 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7451, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $240 MSRP, while EPYC 7451 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

EPYC 7451

2017

Why buy it

✅+220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (26,639 vs 26,874).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 5 225T

2025

EPYC 7451

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Graphics (16EU), while EPYC 7451 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+220% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7451, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $240 MSRP, while EPYC 7451 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 5 225T across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (26,639 vs 26,874).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 5 225T moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 5 225T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 225T better than EPYC 7451?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7451 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 5 225T is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 5 225T is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 8.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 225T is the better fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 10 threads.

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

Core Ultra 5 225T is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 5 225T is at an unclear MSRP at $240 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 8.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (112.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 5 225T is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2017), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of TR4, and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 10 threads instead of 24/48. 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 Ultra 5 225T Benchmark Check

EPYC 7451 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
1080p
low	253 FPS	187 FPS
medium	244 FPS	165 FPS
high	206 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	175 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	217 FPS	153 FPS
medium	186 FPS	127 FPS
high	153 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	132 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	148 FPS	71 FPS
medium	126 FPS	63 FPS
high	98 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225T Open EPYC 7451

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
1080p
low	595 FPS	355 FPS
medium	508 FPS	321 FPS
high	420 FPS	271 FPS
ultra	377 FPS	219 FPS
1440p
low	498 FPS	306 FPS
medium	438 FPS	280 FPS
high	370 FPS	239 FPS
ultra	317 FPS	187 FPS
4K
low	299 FPS	191 FPS
medium	264 FPS	176 FPS
high	246 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	217 FPS	122 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225T Open EPYC 7451

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
1080p
low	672 FPS	620 FPS
medium	672 FPS	518 FPS
high	609 FPS	466 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	399 FPS
1440p
low	672 FPS	517 FPS
medium	588 FPS	432 FPS
high	515 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	439 FPS	325 FPS
4K
low	504 FPS	383 FPS
medium	422 FPS	308 FPS
high	377 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	220 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225T Open EPYC 7451

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
1080p
low	672 FPS	666 FPS
medium	672 FPS	666 FPS
high	672 FPS	659 FPS
ultra	672 FPS	571 FPS
1440p
low	672 FPS	666 FPS
medium	672 FPS	587 FPS
high	611 FPS	503 FPS
ultra	535 FPS	426 FPS
4K
low	550 FPS	476 FPS
medium	501 FPS	429 FPS
high	448 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	393 FPS	324 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225T Open EPYC 7451

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 225T and EPYC 7451

Core Ultra 5 225T

The Core Ultra 5 225T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Janeiro 2025 (recentemente). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 26,874 points. Launch price was $299.

EPYC 7451

The EPYC 7451 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 26,639 points. Launch price was $2,400.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 225T packs 10 cores / 10 threads, while the EPYC 7451 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7451 has 14 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225T versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7451 — a 42% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225T (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 225T uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7451 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 225T scores 26,874 against the EPYC 7451's 26,639 — a 0.9% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225T. L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 225T vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7451.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
Cores / Threads	10 / 10	24 / 48+140%
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+53%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+9%	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+220%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512K (per core)
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Naples (2017−2018)
PassMark	26,874	26,639
Geekbench 6 Single	2,677	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	8,943	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 225T uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7451 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225T	EPYC 7451
Socket	LGA1851	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	—
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	24	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 5 225T) / not specified (EPYC 7451). The Core Ultra 5 225T includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics (16EU)), while the EPYC 7451 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 5 225T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 5 225T rivals Ryzen 5 9600X.