Core Ultra 7 265 vs EPYC 4484PX

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265

20 Cores20 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 4484PX

12 Cores24 Thrd120 WWMax: 5.6 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265

20 / 20

49,666

0.0%

50,547

+1.8%

Ryzen 7 5800X3D

Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375

Ryzen 9 5900X

Ryzen 9 7845HX

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 7 265

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $215 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 53.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 84.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (49,666 vs 50,547).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 4484PX

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅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

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 84.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($599 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

EPYC 4484PX

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $215 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 53.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 84.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +18.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅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 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (49,666 vs 50,547).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 84.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($599 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 4484PX better than Core Ultra 7 265?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 4484PX makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265 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 4484PX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 18.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests. It also has a big cache advantage at 128 MB vs 30 MB.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 4484PX is the better fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 326.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 30 MB).

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

EPYC 4484PX is still the faster CPU overall, but Core Ultra 7 265 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. EPYC 4484PX is 56.0% more expensive on MSRP at $599 MSRP versus $384 MSRP, and it gives you a 18.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core Ultra 7 265 is also 53.3% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 84.4 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 7 265 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 7 265 Benchmark Check

EPYC 4484PX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	280 FPS	271 FPS
medium	273 FPS	248 FPS
high	227 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	186 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	263 FPS
medium	194 FPS	216 FPS
high	155 FPS	171 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	182 FPS
medium	129 FPS	149 FPS
high	99 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	100 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 4484PX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	695 FPS	806 FPS
medium	593 FPS	657 FPS
high	498 FPS	488 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	404 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	648 FPS
medium	539 FPS	551 FPS
high	452 FPS	425 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	329 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	361 FPS
medium	324 FPS	311 FPS
high	305 FPS	273 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	230 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 4484PX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	839 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	685 FPS	1163 FPS
high	610 FPS	1100 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	875 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	970 FPS
medium	596 FPS	877 FPS
high	519 FPS	804 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	596 FPS
medium	434 FPS	518 FPS
high	394 FPS	465 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	393 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 4484PX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
1080p
low	995 FPS	1264 FPS
medium	901 FPS	1015 FPS
high	782 FPS	993 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	865 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	1035 FPS
medium	724 FPS	897 FPS
high	627 FPS	772 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	647 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	759 FPS
medium	501 FPS	662 FPS
high	449 FPS	577 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 4484PX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265 and EPYC 4484PX

Core Ultra 7 265

The Core Ultra 7 265 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 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: 49,666 points. Launch price was $394.

EPYC 4484PX

The EPYC 4484PX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 50,547 points. Launch price was $599.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 5.6 GHz on the EPYC 4484PX — a 5.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 4484PX (base: 2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 4484PX uses Raphael (2023−2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,666 against the EPYC 4484PX's 50,547 — a 1.8% lead for the EPYC 4484PX. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 4484PX.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
Cores / Threads	20 / 20+67%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz	5.6 GHz+6%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	4.4 GHz+83%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+327%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-40%	5 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Raphael (2023−2025)
PassMark	49,666	50,547+2%
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	24,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,950
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	17,500

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 4484PX uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus DDR5-5200 on the EPYC 4484PX — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 28 (EPYC 4484PX) — the EPYC 4484PX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4484PX).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
Socket	LGA1851	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+127900%	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	256	192 GB+78643100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	28+17%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4484PX). Both include integrated graphics — Intel Arc Graphics (Core Ultra 7 265) and Radeon Graphics (EPYC 4484PX) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: EPYC 4484PX targets Workstation / Server. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; EPYC 4484PX rivals Ryzen 9 7900X3D.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 4484PX
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics	Radeon Graphics
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, AMD-Vi
Target Use	—	Workstation / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265 launched at $384 MSRP, while the EPYC 4484PX debuted at $599. On MSRP ($384 vs $599), the Core Ultra 7 265 is $215 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers 129.3 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 42.1% better value option.