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 $1,605 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,989 MSRP).
✅Delivers 425.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,989 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 270W, a 205W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Xeon w7-3445 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 53 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w7-3445, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.

Xeon w7-3445

2023

Why buy it

✅+75% larger total L3 cache (53 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅366.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (48,991 vs 49,666).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,989 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌315.4% higher power demand at 270W 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 w7-3445

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,605 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $1,989 MSRP).
✅Delivers 425.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 24.6 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $1,989 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 270W, a 205W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics, while Xeon w7-3445 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+75% larger total L3 cache (53 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 20 cores / 40 threads, plus 112 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅366.7% more PCIe lanes (112 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 53 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w7-3445, which brings 20 cores / 40 threads and 112 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (48,991 vs 49,666).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 24.6 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($1,989 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
❌315.4% higher power demand at 270W 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 w7-3445?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon w7-3445 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 1.7% 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 1.4% 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 $1,605 cheaper on MSRP at $384 MSRP versus $1,989 MSRP, and it gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 425.1% better value on MSRP (129.3 vs 24.6 PassMark/$), 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 2023) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 20/40. 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

Xeon w7-3445 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	280 FPS	311 FPS
medium	273 FPS	301 FPS
high	227 FPS	242 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	203 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	270 FPS
medium	194 FPS	233 FPS
high	155 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	154 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	183 FPS
medium	129 FPS	157 FPS
high	99 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	106 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon w7-3445

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	695 FPS	677 FPS
medium	593 FPS	587 FPS
high	498 FPS	477 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	423 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	547 FPS
medium	539 FPS	484 FPS
high	452 FPS	411 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	338 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	322 FPS
medium	324 FPS	285 FPS
high	305 FPS	264 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon w7-3445

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	839 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	685 FPS	1045 FPS
high	610 FPS	967 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	829 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	994 FPS
medium	596 FPS	880 FPS
high	519 FPS	798 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	593 FPS
medium	434 FPS	511 FPS
high	394 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	395 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon w7-3445

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
1080p
low	995 FPS	1225 FPS
medium	901 FPS	1015 FPS
high	782 FPS	981 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	851 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	1044 FPS
medium	724 FPS	903 FPS
high	627 FPS	779 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	656 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	777 FPS
medium	501 FPS	676 FPS
high	449 FPS	583 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	437 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265 Open Xeon w7-3445

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265 and Xeon w7-3445

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 w7-3445

The Xeon w7-3445 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 February 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 20 cores and 40 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 52.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 48,991 points. Launch price was $1,989.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores / 20 threads, matching the Xeon w7-3445's 20 cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 4.8 GHz on the Xeon w7-3445 — a 9.9% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon w7-3445 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,666 against the Xeon w7-3445's 48,991 — a 1.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265 vs 52.5 MB on the Xeon w7-3445.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	20 / 40
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+10%	4.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	52.5 MB+75%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+50%	2 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	49,666+1%	48,991

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon w7-3445 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 4800 on the Xeon w7-3445 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 28.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon w7-3445 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 w7-3445). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 112 (Xeon w7-3445) — the Xeon w7-3445 offers 88 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265) and W790 (Xeon w7-3445).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
Socket	LGA1851	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	6400+33%	4800
Max RAM Capacity	256	4096+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	112+367%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon w7-3445 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. 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 w7-3445 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; Xeon w7-3445 rivals Threadripper PRO 7965WX.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265	Xeon w7-3445
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel Arc Graphics	None
Unlocked	No	Yes
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 w7-3445 debuted at $1989. On MSRP ($384 vs $1989), the Core Ultra 7 265 is $1605 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers 129.3 pts/$ vs 24.6 pts/$ for the Xeon w7-3445 — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 136% better value option.