
Core Ultra 7 256V

EPYC 7252
Core Ultra 7 256V vs EPYC 7252 Performance Spectrum
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 256V vs EPYC 7252 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core Ultra 7 256V vs EPYC 7252: 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 256V
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +13.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Draws 17W instead of 120W, a 103W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel Arc Graphics 140V, while EPYC 7252 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7252, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $450 MSRP, while EPYC 7252 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
EPYC 7252
2019Why buy it
- ✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 256V across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (19,411 vs 19,579).
- ❌605.9% higher power demand at 120W vs 17W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 256V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 256V can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 256V better than EPYC 7252?
Which one is better for gaming?
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?
Core Ultra 7 256V vs EPYC 7252 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core Ultra 7 256V
The Core Ultra 7 256V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 19,579 points. Launch price was $299.

EPYC 7252
The EPYC 7252 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 19,411 points. Launch price was $475.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 256V packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the EPYC 7252's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.8 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 256V versus 3.2 GHz on the EPYC 7252 — a 40% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 256V (base: 2.2 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7252 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 256V scores 19,579 against the EPYC 7252's 19,411 — a 0.9% lead for the Core Ultra 7 256V. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 256V vs 32 MB (total) on the EPYC 7252.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 256V | EPYC 7252 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8 | 8 / 16 |
| Boost Clock | 4.8 GHz+50% | 3.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz+41% |
| L3 Cache | 12 MB (total) | 32 MB (total)+167% |
| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB (per core)+400% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-57% | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Architecture | Lunar Lake (2024) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 19,579 | 19,411 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 10,065 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,658 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 11,000 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the FCBGA2833 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7252 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 256V | EPYC 7252 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA2833 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | LPDDR5x 8533 MT/s | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 8 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: true (Core Ultra 7 256V) / not specified (EPYC 7252). The Core Ultra 7 256V includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics 140V), while the EPYC 7252 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 256V targets Mobile.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 256V | EPYC 7252 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | Intel Arc Graphics 140V | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | true | — |
| Target Use | Mobile | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














