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

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,642 less on MSRP ($309 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1494.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 11.9 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 270W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 57 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3375, which brings 38 cores / 76 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3375

2021

Why buy it

✅+90% larger total L3 cache (57 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 38 cores / 76 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (17,713 vs 22,293).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.9 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($4,951 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
❌116% higher power demand at 270W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 265K

2024

Xeon W-3375

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,642 less on MSRP ($309 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1494.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 190.3 vs 11.9 PassMark/$ ($309 MSRP vs $4,951 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 270W, a 145W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of LGA4189 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+90% larger total L3 cache (57 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 38 cores / 76 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 57 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3375, which brings 38 cores / 76 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265K across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (17,713 vs 22,293).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 11.9 vs 190.3 PassMark/$ ($4,951 MSRP vs $309 MSRP).
❌116% higher power demand at 270W vs 125W.
❌Older platform position on LGA4189 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265K moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265K better than Xeon W-3375?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3375 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265K 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 265K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 12.1% more average FPS across 4 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 265K is the better fit. You are getting 25.9% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265K is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265K is $4,642 cheaper on MSRP at $309 MSRP versus $4,951 MSRP, and it gives you a 12.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 1494.1% better value on MSRP (190.3 vs 11.9 PassMark/$), 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 265K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2021), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of LGA4189, and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 38/76. 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 265K Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3375 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	305 FPS	191 FPS
medium	290 FPS	154 FPS
high	244 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	205 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	240 FPS	157 FPS
medium	201 FPS	123 FPS
high	163 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	76 FPS
4K
low	158 FPS	72 FPS
medium	132 FPS	60 FPS
high	102 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	39 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265K Open Xeon W-3375

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	778 FPS	496 FPS
medium	656 FPS	431 FPS
high	548 FPS	345 FPS
ultra	491 FPS	286 FPS
1440p
low	673 FPS	425 FPS
medium	595 FPS	375 FPS
high	499 FPS	310 FPS
ultra	422 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	395 FPS	264 FPS
medium	357 FPS	237 FPS
high	335 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	292 FPS	174 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265K Open Xeon W-3375

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	851 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	694 FPS	937 FPS
high	617 FPS	880 FPS
ultra	528 FPS	796 FPS
1440p
low	731 FPS	799 FPS
medium	599 FPS	710 FPS
high	521 FPS	667 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	597 FPS
4K
low	517 FPS	514 FPS
medium	436 FPS	424 FPS
high	396 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	305 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265K Open Xeon W-3375

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
1080p
low	1128 FPS	932 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	847 FPS
high	889 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	808 FPS	633 FPS
1440p
low	892 FPS	732 FPS
medium	789 FPS	644 FPS
high	687 FPS	554 FPS
ultra	611 FPS	480 FPS
4K
low	604 FPS	532 FPS
medium	542 FPS	476 FPS
high	489 FPS	419 FPS
ultra	432 FPS	360 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265K Open Xeon W-3375

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265K and Xeon W-3375

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.

Xeon W-3375

The Xeon W-3375 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2021-07-29. It is based on the Ice Lake-W (2021) architecture. It features 38 cores and 76 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 57 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4189. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 59,091 points. Launch price was $4,499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265K packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the Xeon W-3375 offers 38 cores / 76 threads — the Xeon W-3375 has 18 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265K versus 4 GHz on the Xeon W-3375 — a 31.6% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K (base: 3.9 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265K uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon W-3375 uses Ice Lake-W (2021) (10 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 58,789 against the Xeon W-3375's 59,091 — a 0.5% lead for the Xeon W-3375. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 3,283 vs 1,818, a 57.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265K that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 22,293 vs 17,713 (22.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265K). L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265K vs 57 MB (total) on the Xeon W-3375.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	38 / 76+90%
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+38%	4 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+56%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	57 MB (total)+90%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-70%	10 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Ice Lake-W (2021)
PassMark	58,789	59,091
Cinebench R23 Multi	36,309	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,283+81%	1,818
Geekbench 6 Multi	22,293+26%	17,713

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265K uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon W-3375 uses LGA4189 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265K versus DDR4-3200 on the Xeon W-3375 — the Core Ultra 7 265K supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3375 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265K) vs 8 (Xeon W-3375). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 7 265K) vs 64 (Xeon W-3375) — the Xeon W-3375 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: LGA1851 (Core Ultra 7 265K) and Intel C621A (Xeon W-3375).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
Socket	LGA1851	LGA4189
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	4096 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265K) vs true (Xeon W-3375). The Core Ultra 7 265K includes integrated graphics (Arc Graphics 64EU), while the Xeon W-3375 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3375 rivals EPYC 7543.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265K	Xeon W-3375
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Arc Graphics 64EU	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	true

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265K launched at $309 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3375 debuted at $4951. On MSRP ($309 vs $4951), the Core Ultra 7 265K is $4642 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265K delivers 190.3 pts/$ vs 11.9 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3375 — making the Core Ultra 7 265K the 176.4% better value option.