Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC 9224

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 Cores20 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9224

24 Cores48 Thrd200 WWMax: 3.7 GHz2022

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 / 20

49,161

+1.2%

48,573

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

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

✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,456 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Delivers 400.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 26.6 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9224, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9224

2022

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 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 265F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,573 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 26.6 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($1,825 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.

Core Ultra 7 265F

2025

EPYC 9224

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,456 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Delivers 400.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 26.6 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 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

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9224, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,573 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 26.6 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($1,825 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265F better than EPYC 9224?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9224 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 265F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 11.9% 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 265F is the better fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, 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 $1,456 cheaper on MSRP at $369 MSRP versus $1,825 MSRP, and it gives you a 11.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 400.6% better value on MSRP (133.2 vs 26.6 PassMark/$), 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 265F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2022) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 24/48. 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 265F Benchmark Check

EPYC 9224 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
1080p
low	280 FPS	168 FPS
medium	273 FPS	139 FPS
high	227 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	146 FPS
medium	194 FPS	118 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 265F Open EPYC 9224

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
1080p
low	695 FPS	500 FPS
medium	593 FPS	439 FPS
high	498 FPS	353 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	291 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	422 FPS
medium	539 FPS	377 FPS
high	452 FPS	313 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	248 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	260 FPS
medium	324 FPS	237 FPS
high	305 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	175 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 9224

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
1080p
low	839 FPS	644 FPS
medium	685 FPS	527 FPS
high	610 FPS	490 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	426 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	501 FPS
medium	596 FPS	408 FPS
high	519 FPS	374 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	323 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	371 FPS
medium	434 FPS	289 FPS
high	394 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	207 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 9224

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
1080p
low	995 FPS	850 FPS
medium	901 FPS	781 FPS
high	782 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	594 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	680 FPS
medium	724 FPS	601 FPS
high	627 FPS	516 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	441 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	491 FPS
medium	501 FPS	441 FPS
high	449 FPS	388 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	333 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 9224

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265F and EPYC 9224

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 9224

The EPYC 9224 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 48,573 points. Launch price was $1,825.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9224 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9224 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9224 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9224 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC 9224's 48,573 — a 1.2% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9224.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	24 / 48+20%
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+43%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.5 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-40%	5 nm, 6 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Genoa (2022−2023)
PassMark	49,161+1%	48,573
Cinebench R23 Multi	25,459	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9224 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 4800 on the EPYC 9224 — the EPYC 9224 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9224 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 256 GB — 184% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 12 (EPYC 9224). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 128 (EPYC 9224) — the EPYC 9224 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and SP5 (EPYC 9224).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
Socket	LGA1851	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	4800+95900%
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+4368967%	6144
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

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 9224 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 9224). Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 9224 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 9224
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V
Target Use	High Performance Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265F launched at $369 MSRP, while the EPYC 9224 debuted at $1825. On MSRP ($369 vs $1825), the Core Ultra 7 265F is $1456 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 26.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9224 — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 133.4% better value option.