Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC 4484PX

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

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 265F

20 / 20

49,161

0.0%

50,547

+2.8%

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 265F

2025

Why buy it

✅+3.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Costs $230 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 57.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 84.4 PassMark/$ ($369 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.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.
❌No integrated graphics, while EPYC 4484PX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

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.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (24,500 vs 25,459).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 84.4 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($599 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.

Core Ultra 7 265F

2025

EPYC 4484PX

2024

Why buy it

✅+3.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅Costs $230 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 57.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 84.4 PassMark/$ ($369 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.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon Graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.
❌No integrated graphics, while EPYC 4484PX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (24,500 vs 25,459).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 84.4 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($599 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

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

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 4484PX makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265F 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, Core Ultra 7 265F is the better fit. You are getting 3.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265F is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265F is $230 cheaper on MSRP at $369 MSRP versus $599 MSRP, and it gives you 3.9% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that EPYC 4484PX is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 18.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 57.9% better value on MSRP (133.2 vs 84.4 PassMark/$), 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 4484PX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 3D V-Cache and a much larger 128 MB L3 cache instead of 30 MB and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra cache should hold up really well in CPU-limited games and high-refresh builds.

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 265F Benchmark Check

EPYC 4484PX Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	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 265F Open EPYC 4484PX

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	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 265F Open EPYC 4484PX

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	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 265F Open EPYC 4484PX

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	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 265F Open EPYC 4484PX

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 7 265F

The Core Ultra 7 265F 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: 49,161 points. Launch price was $379.

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 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265F has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F 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 265F 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 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC 4484PX's 50,547 — a 2.8% lead for the EPYC 4484PX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 25,459 vs 24,500 (3.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 3,000 vs 2,950, a 1.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 20,000 vs 17,500 (13.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 4484PX.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	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	49,161	50,547+3%
Cinebench R23 Multi	25,459+4%	24,500
Geekbench 6 Single	3,000+2%	2,950
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,000+14%	17,500

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 4484PX uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6400 memory speed. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports up to 256 GB 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 265F) vs 28 (EPYC 4484PX) — the EPYC 4484PX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4484PX).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 4484PX
Socket	LGA1851	AM5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	DDR5-5200
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+33%	192 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	28+17%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 4484PX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4484PX). The EPYC 4484PX includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics), while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming, EPYC 4484PX targets Workstation / Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 4484PX rivals Ryzen 9 7900X3D.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 4484PX
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	None	Radeon Graphics
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	AMD-V, AMD-Vi
Target Use	High Performance Gaming	Workstation / Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265F launched at $369 MSRP, while the EPYC 4484PX debuted at $599. On MSRP ($369 vs $599), the Core Ultra 7 265F is $230 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 44.9% better value option.