Core Ultra 7 265KF vs EPYC 9135

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265KF

20 Cores20 Thrd125 WWMax: 5.5 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9135

16 Cores32 Thrd200 WWMax: 4.3 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265KF

20 / 20

58,690

+1.5%

57,808

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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 265KF

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $835 less on MSRP ($379 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 225.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 154.9 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($379 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 200W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 265KF across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,808 vs 58,690).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.6 vs 154.9 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
❌60% higher power demand at 200W vs 125W.

Core Ultra 7 265KF

2024

EPYC 9135

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $835 less on MSRP ($379 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 225.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 154.9 vs 47.6 PassMark/$ ($379 MSRP vs $1,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 200W, a 75W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 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 9135, which brings 16 cores / 32 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 265KF across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (57,808 vs 58,690).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.6 vs 154.9 PassMark/$ ($1,214 MSRP vs $379 MSRP).
❌60% higher power demand at 200W vs 125W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265KF better than EPYC 9135?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9135 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 265KF is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 19.7% 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 265KF is the better fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265KF is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265KF is $835 cheaper on MSRP at $379 MSRP versus $1,214 MSRP, and it gives you a 19.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 225.2% better value on MSRP (154.9 vs 47.6 PassMark/$), 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?

EPYC 9135 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB) and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That makes it the safer long-term pick.

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 265KF Benchmark Check

EPYC 9135 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	305 FPS	172 FPS
medium	290 FPS	139 FPS
high	244 FPS	119 FPS
ultra	205 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	240 FPS	152 FPS
medium	201 FPS	120 FPS
high	163 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	142 FPS	81 FPS
4K
low	158 FPS	81 FPS
medium	132 FPS	69 FPS
high	102 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	45 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265KF Open EPYC 9135

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	778 FPS	496 FPS
medium	656 FPS	439 FPS
high	548 FPS	341 FPS
ultra	491 FPS	293 FPS
1440p
low	673 FPS	427 FPS
medium	595 FPS	382 FPS
high	499 FPS	309 FPS
ultra	422 FPS	248 FPS
4K
low	395 FPS	267 FPS
medium	357 FPS	242 FPS
high	335 FPS	211 FPS
ultra	292 FPS	183 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265KF Open EPYC 9135

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	851 FPS	729 FPS
medium	694 FPS	607 FPS
high	617 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	528 FPS	489 FPS
1440p
low	731 FPS	559 FPS
medium	599 FPS	463 FPS
high	521 FPS	415 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	362 FPS
4K
low	517 FPS	407 FPS
medium	436 FPS	325 FPS
high	396 FPS	287 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	232 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265KF Open EPYC 9135

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
1080p
low	1128 FPS	929 FPS
medium	1015 FPS	846 FPS
high	889 FPS	732 FPS
ultra	808 FPS	660 FPS
1440p
low	892 FPS	735 FPS
medium	789 FPS	652 FPS
high	687 FPS	561 FPS
ultra	611 FPS	493 FPS
4K
low	604 FPS	524 FPS
medium	542 FPS	475 FPS
high	489 FPS	417 FPS
ultra	432 FPS	365 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265KF Open EPYC 9135

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135

Core Ultra 7 265KF

The Core Ultra 7 265KF 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: 58,690 points. Launch price was $379.

EPYC 9135

The EPYC 9135 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.65 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 57,808 points. Launch price was $1,214.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265KF packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9135 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265KF has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265KF versus 4.3 GHz on the EPYC 9135 — a 24.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265KF (base: 3.9 GHz vs 3.65 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9135 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 58,690 against the EPYC 9135's 57,808 — a 1.5% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265KF. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265KF vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 9135.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
Cores / Threads	20 / 20+25%	16 / 32
Boost Clock	5.5 GHz+28%	4.3 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+7%	3.65 GHz
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-25%	4 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Turin (2024)
PassMark	58,690+2%	57,808
Cinebench R23 Multi	35,315	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,055	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,373	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 9135 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265KF versus 6000 on the EPYC 9135 — the EPYC 9135 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9135 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265KF) vs 12 (EPYC 9135). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265KF) vs 128 (EPYC 9135) — the EPYC 9135 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel Z890 (Core Ultra 7 265KF) and SP5 (EPYC 9135).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
Socket	LGA1851	SP5
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0	PCIe 5.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	6000+119900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+3276700%	6144
RAM Channels	2	12+500%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265KF has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 9135 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 7 265KF) vs VT-x, VT-d (EPYC 9135). Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265KF rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; EPYC 9135 rivals Xeon Platinum 8558P.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265KF	EPYC 9135
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	true	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265KF launched at $379 MSRP, while the EPYC 9135 debuted at $1214. On MSRP ($379 vs $1214), the Core Ultra 7 265KF is $835 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265KF delivers 154.9 pts/$ vs 47.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9135 — making the Core Ultra 7 265KF the 105.9% better value option.