Core Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC 4465P

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 255HX

20 Cores20 Thrd55 WWMax: 5.2 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 4465P

12 Cores24 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.4 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 255HX

20 / 20

49,765

0.0%

50,216

+0.9%

Ryzen 7 5800XT

Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

About PassMark

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 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4465P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (49,765 vs 50,216).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4465P, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 4465P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads, plus 28 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅16.7% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $399 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

EPYC 4465P

2025

Why buy it

✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads, plus 28 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅16.7% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4465P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (49,765 vs 50,216).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4465P, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $399 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 4465P better than Core Ultra 7 255HX?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 4465P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 255HX 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, EPYC 4465P is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.2% 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, EPYC 4465P is the better fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).

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

EPYC 4465P is the smarter buy today. EPYC 4465P is at an unclear MSRP at $399 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (125.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 4465P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB), more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 20/20, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 7 255HX Benchmark Check

EPYC 4465P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
1080p
low	280 FPS	271 FPS
medium	272 FPS	247 FPS
high	228 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	183 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	255 FPS
medium	193 FPS	208 FPS
high	156 FPS	165 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	148 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	176 FPS
medium	129 FPS	144 FPS
high	99 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	97 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 4465P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
1080p
low	673 FPS	678 FPS
medium	574 FPS	581 FPS
high	483 FPS	436 FPS
ultra	438 FPS	376 FPS
1440p
low	584 FPS	570 FPS
medium	515 FPS	506 FPS
high	434 FPS	393 FPS
ultra	370 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	345 FPS	321 FPS
medium	310 FPS	289 FPS
high	292 FPS	256 FPS
ultra	254 FPS	219 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 4465P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
1080p
low	839 FPS	849 FPS
medium	685 FPS	678 FPS
high	610 FPS	600 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	514 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	678 FPS
medium	596 FPS	542 FPS
high	519 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	397 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	484 FPS
medium	434 FPS	400 FPS
high	394 FPS	360 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	302 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 4465P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
1080p
low	995 FPS	1087 FPS
medium	901 FPS	980 FPS
high	782 FPS	857 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	772 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	852 FPS
medium	724 FPS	756 FPS
high	627 FPS	662 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	574 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	626 FPS
medium	501 FPS	560 FPS
high	449 FPS	494 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	428 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 255HX Open EPYC 4465P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 255HX and EPYC 4465P

Core Ultra 7 255HX

The Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,765 points. Launch price was $450.

EPYC 4465P

The EPYC 4465P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 13 May 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Grado (2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 50,216 points. Launch price was $399.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 255HX packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 4465P offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 7 255HX has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 5.4 GHz on the EPYC 4465P — a 3.8% clock advantage for the EPYC 4465P (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 4465P uses Grado (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 49,765 against the EPYC 4465P's 50,216 — a 0.9% lead for the EPYC 4465P. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 255HX vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 4465P.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
Cores / Threads	20 / 20+67%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz	5.4 GHz+4%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.4 GHz+42%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-25%	4 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Grado (2025)
PassMark	49,765	50,216
Geekbench 6 Single	2,923	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	16,885	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 4465P uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 5200 on the EPYC 4465P — the EPYC 4465P supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 255HX supports up to 192 GB of RAM compared to 128 — 40% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 28 (EPYC 4465P) — the EPYC 4465P offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel HM870,Intel WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) and AM5 (EPYC 4465P).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC 4465P
Socket	FCBGA2114	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	5200+103900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+157286300%	128
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	28+17%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Only the EPYC 4465P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 4465P). Both include integrated graphics — Intel Arc Xe-LPG (Core Ultra 7 255HX) and AMD Radeon Graphics (EPYC 4465P) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 255HX rivals Ryzen 9 9850HX; EPYC 4465P rivals Core i7-14700K.