
Core Ultra 7 265K
Popular choices:

EPYC 7473X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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 265K
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,591 less on MSRP ($309 MSRP vs $3,900 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1151.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $3,900 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 240W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (58,789 vs 59,280).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 768 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7473X, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7473X
2022Why buy it
- ✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
- ✅+2460% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($3,900 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
- ❌92% higher power demand at 240W vs 125W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024EPYC 7473X
2022Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $3,591 less on MSRP ($309 MSRP vs $3,900 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1151.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 15.2 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $3,900 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 125W instead of 240W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Why buy it
- ✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
- ✅+2460% larger total L3 cache (768 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (58,789 vs 59,280).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 768 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7473X, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.2 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($3,900 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
- ❌92% higher power demand at 240W vs 125W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265K better than EPYC 7473X?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 305 FPS | 205 FPS |
| medium | 290 FPS | 167 FPS |
| high | 244 FPS | 136 FPS |
| ultra | 205 FPS | 105 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 240 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 201 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 163 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 142 FPS | 79 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 158 FPS | 74 FPS |
| medium | 132 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 102 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 89 FPS | 40 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 778 FPS | 561 FPS |
| medium | 656 FPS | 490 FPS |
| high | 548 FPS | 390 FPS |
| ultra | 491 FPS | 316 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 673 FPS | 461 FPS |
| medium | 595 FPS | 413 FPS |
| high | 499 FPS | 338 FPS |
| ultra | 422 FPS | 266 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 395 FPS | 284 FPS |
| medium | 357 FPS | 258 FPS |
| high | 335 FPS | 225 FPS |
| ultra | 292 FPS | 187 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 851 FPS | 865 FPS |
| medium | 694 FPS | 717 FPS |
| high | 617 FPS | 668 FPS |
| ultra | 528 FPS | 590 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 731 FPS | 622 FPS |
| medium | 599 FPS | 514 FPS |
| high | 521 FPS | 472 FPS |
| ultra | 442 FPS | 412 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 517 FPS | 444 FPS |
| medium | 436 FPS | 345 FPS |
| high | 396 FPS | 308 FPS |
| ultra | 337 FPS | 249 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 1128 FPS | 994 FPS |
| medium | 1015 FPS | 902 FPS |
| high | 889 FPS | 777 FPS |
| ultra | 808 FPS | 672 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 892 FPS | 768 FPS |
| medium | 789 FPS | 670 FPS |
| high | 687 FPS | 573 FPS |
| ultra | 611 FPS | 493 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 604 FPS | 551 FPS |
| medium | 542 FPS | 491 FPS |
| high | 489 FPS | 431 FPS |
| ultra | 432 FPS | 373 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 7473X

Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K
The Core Ultra 7 265K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 5.5 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 58,789 points. Launch price was $394.

EPYC 7473X
EPYC 7473X
The EPYC 7473X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2022-03-01. It is based on the Milan-X (2022) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 768 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 59,280 points. Launch price was $3,900.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265K packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7473X offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 7473X has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265K versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 7473X — a 39.1% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K (base: 3.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265K uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7473X uses Milan-X (2022) (7 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 58,789 against the EPYC 7473X's 59,280 — a 0.8% lead for the EPYC 7473X. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265K vs 768 MB (total) on the EPYC 7473X.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 24 / 48+20% |
| Boost Clock | 5.5 GHz+49% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.9 GHz+39% | 2.8 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 30 MB (total) | 768 MB (total)+2460% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+500% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-57% | 7 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Milan-X (2022) |
| PassMark | 58,789 | 59,280 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 36,309 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 3,283 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 22,293 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 265K uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7473X uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265K versus 3200 on the EPYC 7473X — the EPYC 7473X supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7473X supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 256 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265K) vs 8 (EPYC 7473X). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 7 265K) vs 128 (EPYC 7473X) — the EPYC 7473X offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1851 (Core Ultra 7 265K) and SP3 (EPYC 7473X).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400 | 3200+63900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 GB+6553500% | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core Ultra 7 265K supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265K includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 7473X requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 7473X rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Arc Graphics 64EU | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | Yes | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
Value Analysis
The Core Ultra 7 265K launched at $309 MSRP, while the EPYC 7473X debuted at $3900. On MSRP ($309 vs $3900), the Core Ultra 7 265K is $3591 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265K delivers 190.3 pts/$ vs 15.2 pts/$ for the EPYC 7473X — making the Core Ultra 7 265K the 170.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265K | EPYC 7473X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $309-92% | $3900 |
| Performance per Dollar | 190.3+1152% | 15.2 |
| Release Date | 2024 | 2022 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













