Core Ultra 7 265 vs EPYC 7413

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265

20 Cores20 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7413

24 Cores48 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.6 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265

20 / 20

49,666

0.0%

50,641

+2.0%

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

✅Better for gaming: +19.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,441 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Delivers 366.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 27.7 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (49,666 vs 50,641).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7413, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7413

2021

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅+326.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.7 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,825 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

EPYC 7413

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,441 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Delivers 366.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 27.7 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 180W, a 115W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+2% higher PassMark.
✅+326.7% larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (49,666 vs 50,641).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 128 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7413, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 27.7 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,825 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌176.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265 moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265 better than EPYC 7413?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7413 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7413 is the better fit. You are getting 2% better PassMark, backed by 24 cores and 48 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?

Core Ultra 7 265 is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265 is $1,441 cheaper on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $1,825 MSRP, and it gives you a 19.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that EPYC 7413 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 2% better PassMark. It is also 366.1% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 27.7 PassMark/$), 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 7 265 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2021) and a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3. 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 7 265 Benchmark Check

EPYC 7413 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
1080p
low	280 FPS	169 FPS
medium	273 FPS	140 FPS
high	227 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	147 FPS
medium	194 FPS	119 FPS
high	155 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	69 FPS
medium	129 FPS	59 FPS
high	99 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 7413

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
1080p
low	695 FPS	422 FPS
medium	593 FPS	371 FPS
high	498 FPS	301 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	237 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	347 FPS
medium	539 FPS	313 FPS
high	452 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	200 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	213 FPS
medium	324 FPS	196 FPS
high	305 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	132 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 7413

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
1080p
low	839 FPS	668 FPS
medium	685 FPS	558 FPS
high	610 FPS	519 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	452 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	506 FPS
medium	596 FPS	422 FPS
high	519 FPS	386 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	334 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	374 FPS
medium	434 FPS	292 FPS
high	394 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	209 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 7413

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
1080p
low	995 FPS	900 FPS
medium	901 FPS	821 FPS
high	782 FPS	707 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	623 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	719 FPS
medium	724 FPS	627 FPS
high	627 FPS	537 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	459 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	516 FPS
medium	501 FPS	461 FPS
high	449 FPS	405 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	348 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open EPYC 7413

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265 and EPYC 7413

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 7413

The EPYC 7413 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.65 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 50,641 points. Launch price was $1,825.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7413 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7413 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 3.6 GHz on the EPYC 7413 — a 38.2% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7413 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,666 against the EPYC 7413's 50,641 — a 1.9% lead for the EPYC 7413. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 7413.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	24 / 48+20%
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+47%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.65 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	128 MB (total)+327%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm+
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	49,666	50,641+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7413 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 3200 on the EPYC 7413 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 66.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7413 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 256 — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 8 (EPYC 7413). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 128 (EPYC 7413) — the EPYC 7413 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265) and SP3 (EPYC 7413).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
Socket	LGA1851	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+100%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	256	4096+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the EPYC 7413 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; EPYC 7413 rivals Xeon Gold 6338.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	EPYC 7413
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265 launched at $384 MSRP, while the EPYC 7413 debuted at $1825. On MSRP ($384 vs $1825), the Core Ultra 7 265 is $1441 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers 129.3 pts/$ vs 27.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 7413 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 129.3% better value option.