Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 Cores20 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC Embedded 8224P

24 Cores48 Thrd160 WWMax: 3 GHz2023

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 / 20

49,161

+0.6%

48,869

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: +14.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $486 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Delivers 133.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 57.2 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC Embedded 8224P, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC Embedded 8224P

2023

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 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 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 (48,869 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 57.2 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($855 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.

Core Ultra 7 265F

2025

EPYC Embedded 8224P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $486 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Delivers 133.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 57.2 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W 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 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 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 Embedded 8224P, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 96 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 (48,869 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 57.2 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($855 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265F better than EPYC Embedded 8224P?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC Embedded 8224P 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 14.7% 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 265F is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% 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 $486 cheaper on MSRP at $369 MSRP versus $855 MSRP, and it gives you a 14.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 133.1% better value on MSRP (133.2 vs 57.2 PassMark/$), 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 2023) 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 Embedded 8224P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
1080p
low	280 FPS	157 FPS
medium	273 FPS	129 FPS
high	227 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	86 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	140 FPS
medium	194 FPS	112 FPS
high	155 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	67 FPS
medium	129 FPS	57 FPS
high	99 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	36 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC Embedded 8224P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
1080p
low	695 FPS	392 FPS
medium	593 FPS	348 FPS
high	498 FPS	284 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	227 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	330 FPS
medium	539 FPS	299 FPS
high	452 FPS	252 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	193 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	204 FPS
medium	324 FPS	187 FPS
high	305 FPS	159 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	128 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC Embedded 8224P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
1080p
low	839 FPS	858 FPS
medium	685 FPS	771 FPS
high	610 FPS	745 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	668 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	662 FPS
medium	596 FPS	576 FPS
high	519 FPS	548 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	487 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	434 FPS
medium	434 FPS	343 FPS
high	394 FPS	306 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	250 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC Embedded 8224P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
1080p
low	995 FPS	1018 FPS
medium	901 FPS	908 FPS
high	782 FPS	770 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	647 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	824 FPS
medium	724 FPS	708 FPS
high	627 FPS	597 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	488 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	597 FPS
medium	501 FPS	521 FPS
high	449 FPS	449 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	372 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC Embedded 8224P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265F and EPYC Embedded 8224P

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 Embedded 8224P

The EPYC Embedded 8224P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,869 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC Embedded 8224P has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — a 55.4% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC Embedded 8224P's 48,869 — a 0.6% 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 Embedded 8224P.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	24 / 48+20%
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+77%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.55 GHz+6%
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
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	49,161	48,869
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 Embedded 8224P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 4800 on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — the EPYC Embedded 8224P supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC Embedded 8224P supports up to 1152 of RAM compared to 256 GB — 127.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 96 (EPYC Embedded 8224P) — the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and SP6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Socket	LGA1851	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	4800+95900%
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+23301589%	1152
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	96+300%

🔧

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 Embedded 8224P 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 Embedded 8224P). Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC Embedded 8224P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC Embedded 8224P
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 Embedded 8224P debuted at $855. On MSRP ($369 vs $855), the Core Ultra 7 265F is $486 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 57.2 pts/$ for the EPYC Embedded 8224P — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 79.9% better value option.