Core Ultra 7 265H vs EPYC 7601

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265H

16 Cores16 Thrd26 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7601

32 Cores64 Thrd180 WWMax: 3.2 GHz2017

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265H

16 / 16

34,702

0.0%

35,059

+1.0%

Ryzen 7 5800HS

Ryzen 7 3800XT

Ryzen 9 PRO 7940HS

Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX

Ryzen 9 8940HX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 265H

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +183.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 26W instead of 180W, a 154W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T GPU, while EPYC 7601 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (34,702 vs 35,059).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7601, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265H across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌592.3% higher power demand at 180W vs 26W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265H can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core Ultra 7 265H

2025

EPYC 7601

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +183.1% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 26W instead of 180W, a 154W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2049 with DDR5 support instead of TR4 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc 140T GPU, while EPYC 7601 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 24 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 32 cores / 64 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (34,702 vs 35,059).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (24 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7601, which brings 32 cores / 64 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265H across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌592.3% higher power demand at 180W vs 26W.
❌Older platform position on TR4 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265H moves to FCBGA2049 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265H can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265H better than EPYC 7601?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7601 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265H 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, EPYC 7601 is the better fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 24 MB).

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

Core Ultra 7 265H still looks like the safer overall buy. Core Ultra 7 265H is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 183.1% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core Ultra 7 265H is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2017), a healthier platform with FCBGA2049 and DDR5 instead of TR4, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 265H Benchmark Check

EPYC 7601 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	310 FPS	187 FPS
medium	280 FPS	165 FPS
high	234 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	199 FPS	105 FPS
1440p
low	252 FPS	153 FPS
medium	202 FPS	127 FPS
high	164 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	174 FPS	71 FPS
medium	140 FPS	63 FPS
high	108 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	94 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265H Open EPYC 7601

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	862 FPS	207 FPS
medium	658 FPS	188 FPS
high	534 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	469 FPS	131 FPS
1440p
low	734 FPS	178 FPS
medium	588 FPS	163 FPS
high	481 FPS	141 FPS
ultra	398 FPS	111 FPS
4K
low	428 FPS	112 FPS
medium	351 FPS	103 FPS
high	321 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	75 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265H Open EPYC 7601

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	868 FPS	620 FPS
medium	868 FPS	518 FPS
high	780 FPS	466 FPS
ultra	662 FPS	399 FPS
1440p
low	868 FPS	517 FPS
medium	735 FPS	432 FPS
high	635 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	544 FPS	325 FPS
4K
low	642 FPS	383 FPS
medium	534 FPS	308 FPS
high	483 FPS	270 FPS
ultra	409 FPS	220 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265H Open EPYC 7601

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
1080p
low	868 FPS	832 FPS
medium	868 FPS	759 FPS
high	868 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	783 FPS	565 FPS
1440p
low	868 FPS	666 FPS
medium	804 FPS	584 FPS
high	704 FPS	500 FPS
ultra	610 FPS	422 FPS
4K
low	613 FPS	474 FPS
medium	541 FPS	427 FPS
high	489 FPS	375 FPS
ultra	428 FPS	322 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265H Open EPYC 7601

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265H and EPYC 7601

Core Ultra 7 265H

The Core Ultra 7 265H is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.5 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 24 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2049. Thermal design power (TDP): 26 MB + 24 MB. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 34,702 points. Launch price was $471.

EPYC 7601

The EPYC 7601 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 June 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 35,059 points. Launch price was $4,200.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265H packs 16 cores / 16 threads, while the EPYC 7601 offers 32 cores / 64 threads — the EPYC 7601 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265H versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7601 — a 49.4% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265H (base: 4.5 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake-H (2025) architecture (5 nm), while the EPYC 7601 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265H scores 34,702 against the EPYC 7601's 35,059 — a 1% lead for the EPYC 7601. L3 cache: 24 MB on the Core Ultra 7 265H vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7601.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
Cores / Threads	16 / 16	32 / 64+100%
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+66%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	4.5 GHz+105%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	24 MB	64 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	—	512K (per core)
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-H (2025)	Naples (2017−2018)
PassMark	34,702	35,059+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265H uses the FCBGA2049 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7601 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 8400 on the Core Ultra 7 265H versus 2666 on the EPYC 7601 — the Core Ultra 7 265H supports 103.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7601 supports up to 2048 of RAM compared to 128 — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265H) vs 8 (EPYC 7601). PCIe lanes: 28 (Core Ultra 7 265H) vs 128 (EPYC 7601) — the EPYC 7601 offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: BGA 2049 (Core Ultra 7 265H) and SP3 (EPYC 7601).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265H	EPYC 7601
Socket	FCBGA2049	TR4
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	8400+215%	2666
Max RAM Capacity	128	2048+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	128+357%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the Core Ultra 7 265H supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265H) vs AMD-V, SVM (EPYC 7601). The Core Ultra 7 265H includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc 140T GPU), while the EPYC 7601 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265H rivals Ryzen AI 9 HX 370; EPYC 7601 rivals Xeon Platinum 8180.