Core 7 160UL vs EPYC 7261

Core 7 160UL vs EPYC 7261 Performance Spectrum

Core 7 160UL

10 / 12

11,043

0.0%

11,149

+1.0%

FX-8370

Athlon Gold PRO 3150G

Ryzen 3 7320U

Ryzen 3 PRO 4450U

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Ryzen 9 7900

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

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.

Core 7 160UL vs EPYC 7261 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core 7 160UL vs EPYC 7261: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core 7 160UL

2024

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 155W, a 140W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1700 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (11,043 vs 11,149).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7261, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.

EPYC 7261

2018

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $501 MSRP, while Core 7 160UL mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌933.3% higher power demand at 155W vs 15W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core 7 160UL moves to LGA1700 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core 7 160UL better than EPYC 7261?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC 7261 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core 7 160UL is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 7261 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Core 7 160UL is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7261 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core 7 160UL comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $501 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that EPYC 7261 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1% better PassMark. EPYC 7261 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core 7 160UL makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2018) and a healthier platform with LGA1700 and DDR5 instead of SP3. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core 7 160UL vs EPYC 7261 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core 7 160UL

The Core 7 160UL is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture. It features 10 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 11,043 points. Launch price was $149.

EPYC 7261

The EPYC 7261 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Naples (2017−2018) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 170 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2666. Passmark benchmark score: 11,149 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 7 160UL packs 10 cores / 12 threads, while the EPYC 7261 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core 7 160UL has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core 7 160UL versus 2.9 GHz on the EPYC 7261 — a 56.8% clock advantage for the Core 7 160UL (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake-PS (2024) architecture (10 nm), while the EPYC 7261 uses Naples (2017−2018) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core 7 160UL scores 11,043 against the EPYC 7261's 11,149 — a 1% lead for the EPYC 7261. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core 7 160UL vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7261.

Feature	Core 7 160UL	EPYC 7261
Cores / Threads	10 / 12+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+79%	2.9 GHz
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.5 GHz+39%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)	512K (per core)+40860%
Process	10 nm-29%	14 nm
Architecture	Raptor Lake-PS (2024)	Naples (2017−2018)
PassMark	11,043	11,149

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 7 160UL uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7261 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.