Core Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC Embedded 8224P

Core Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC Embedded 8224P Performance Spectrum

Core Ultra 7 255HX

20 / 20

49,765

+1.8%

48,869

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

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 Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC Embedded 8224P 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 Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC Embedded 8224P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 160W, a 105W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Xe-LPG, while EPYC Embedded 8224P needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC Embedded 8224P, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC Embedded 8224P

2023

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 255HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,869 vs 49,765).
❌Launch MSRP is still $855 MSRP, while Core Ultra 7 255HX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌190.9% higher power demand at 160W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 255HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 255HX better than EPYC Embedded 8224P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. EPYC Embedded 8224P makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 255HX is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 255HX is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.4% 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 255HX is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core Ultra 7 255HX comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $855 MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC Embedded 8224P only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 14.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2023) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 24/48. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Core Ultra 7 255HX vs EPYC Embedded 8224P Technical Specifications

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

Core Ultra 7 255HX

The Core Ultra 7 255HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.2 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,765 points. Launch price was $450.

EPYC Embedded 8224P

The EPYC Embedded 8224P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,869 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 255HX packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC Embedded 8224P has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.2 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 3 GHz on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — a 53.7% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 255HX (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 255HX scores 49,765 against the EPYC Embedded 8224P's 48,869 — a 1.8% lead for the Core Ultra 7 255HX. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 255HX vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC Embedded 8224P.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	24 / 48+20%
Boost Clock	5.2 GHz+73%	3 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.55 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-40%	5 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-HX (2025)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	49,765+2%	48,869
Geekbench 6 Single	2,923	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	16,885	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 255HX versus 4800 on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — the Core Ultra 7 255HX supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC Embedded 8224P supports up to 1152 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs 96 (EPYC Embedded 8224P) — the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel HM870,Intel WM880 (Core Ultra 7 255HX) and SP6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 255HX	EPYC Embedded 8224P
Socket	FCBGA2114	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400+33%	4800
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB	1152 GB+500%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	96+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC Embedded 8224P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: true (Core Ultra 7 255HX) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC Embedded 8224P). The Core Ultra 7 255HX includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Xe-LPG), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 255HX rivals Ryzen 9 9850HX; EPYC Embedded 8224P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.