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: +4.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $811 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 216.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 190W, a 125W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Xeon 6517P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 72 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 6517P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 88 PCIe lanes.

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅+140% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 88 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅266.7% more PCIe lanes (88 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 (48,810 vs 49,666).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌192.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265

2025

Xeon 6517P

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $811 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Delivers 216.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 40.8 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,195 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 190W, a 125W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Xeon 6517P needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+140% larger total L3 cache (72 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 88 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅266.7% more PCIe lanes (88 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 72 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 6517P, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 88 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,810 vs 49,666).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 40.8 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,195 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌192.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 65W.
❌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 Xeon 6517P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon 6517P 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, Core Ultra 7 265 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.6% 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 7 265 is the better fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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 $811 cheaper on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $1,195 MSRP, and it gives you a 4.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 216.7% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 40.8 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon 6517P is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more overall headroom and a better platform outlook.

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

Xeon 6517P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	280 FPS	192 FPS
medium	273 FPS	153 FPS
high	227 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	157 FPS
medium	194 FPS	122 FPS
high	155 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	72 FPS
medium	129 FPS	60 FPS
high	99 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon 6517P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	695 FPS	559 FPS
medium	593 FPS	488 FPS
high	498 FPS	396 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	353 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	483 FPS
medium	539 FPS	426 FPS
high	452 FPS	357 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	299 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	302 FPS
medium	324 FPS	270 FPS
high	305 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	220 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon 6517P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	839 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	685 FPS	986 FPS
high	610 FPS	910 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	824 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	859 FPS
medium	596 FPS	755 FPS
high	519 FPS	697 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	626 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	541 FPS
medium	434 FPS	442 FPS
high	394 FPS	389 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	319 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon 6517P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
1080p
low	995 FPS	1022 FPS
medium	901 FPS	916 FPS
high	782 FPS	782 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	672 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	788 FPS
medium	724 FPS	689 FPS
high	627 FPS	586 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	504 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	563 FPS
medium	501 FPS	501 FPS
high	449 FPS	441 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	377 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon 6517P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265 and Xeon 6517P

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.

Xeon 6517P

The Xeon 6517P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 72 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 190 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 48,810 points. Launch price was $1,195.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the Xeon 6517P offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon 6517P — a 23.2% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon 6517P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,666 against the Xeon 6517P's 48,810 — a 1.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265 vs 72 MB (total) on the Xeon 6517P.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
Cores / Threads	20 / 20+25%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+26%	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.2 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	72 MB (total)+140%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+50%	2 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm	Intel 3 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	49,666+2%	48,810

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6517P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 6400 memory speed. The Xeon 6517P 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 (Xeon 6517P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 88 (Xeon 6517P) — the Xeon 6517P offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265) and Granite Rapids-SP (Xeon 6517P).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
Socket	LGA1851	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	6400	6400
Max RAM Capacity	256	4096+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	88+267%

🔧

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 Xeon 6517P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; Xeon 6517P rivals EPYC 9554.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon 6517P
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 Xeon 6517P debuted at $1195. On MSRP ($384 vs $1195), the Core Ultra 7 265 is $811 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers 129.3 pts/$ vs 40.8 pts/$ for the Xeon 6517P — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 104% better value option.