Core Ultra 7 265
EPYC 4484PX
Core Ultra 7 265 vs EPYC 4484PX 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 7 265 vs EPYC 4484PX 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 7 265 vs EPYC 4484PX: 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 7 265
2025Why buy it
- ✅Costs $215 less on MSRP ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 53.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 129.3 vs 84.4 PassMark/$ ($384 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 4484PX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (49,666 vs 50,547).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 4484PX, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 28 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 4484PX
2024Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +18.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 threads, plus 28 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅16.7% more PCIe lanes (28 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 84.4 vs 129.3 PassMark/$ ($599 MSRP vs $384 MSRP).
- ❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 4484PX better than Core Ultra 7 265?
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 7 265 vs EPYC 4484PX Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core Ultra 7 265
The Core Ultra 7 265 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,666 points. Launch price was $394.
EPYC 4484PX
The EPYC 4484PX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 May 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Raphael (2023−2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.6 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 50,547 points. Launch price was $599.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus 5.6 GHz on the EPYC 4484PX — a 5.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 4484PX (base: 2.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 4484PX uses Raphael (2023−2025) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265 scores 49,666 against the EPYC 4484PX's 50,547 — a 1.8% lead for the EPYC 4484PX. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 4484PX.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265 | EPYC 4484PX |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20+67% | 12 / 24 |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz | 5.6 GHz+6% |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | 4.4 GHz+83% |
| L3 Cache | 30 MB (total) | 128 MB (total)+327% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+200% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-40% | 5 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Raphael (2023−2025) |
| PassMark | 49,666 | 50,547+2% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 24,500 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 2,950 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 17,500 |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 4484PX uses AM5 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 versus DDR5-5200 on the EPYC 4484PX — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 23.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 33.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265) vs 28 (EPYC 4484PX) — the EPYC 4484PX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4484PX).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265 | EPYC 4484PX |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | AM5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 6400+23% | DDR5-5200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 GB+33% | 192 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 28+17% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4484PX). Both include integrated graphics — Intel Arc Graphics (Core Ultra 7 265) and Radeon Graphics (EPYC 4484PX) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: EPYC 4484PX targets Workstation / Server. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X; EPYC 4484PX rivals Ryzen 9 7900X3D.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265 | EPYC 4484PX |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Intel Arc Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | AMD-V, AMD-Vi |
| Target Use | — | Workstation / Server |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265 was priced at $384, while the EPYC 4484PX came in at $599. On launch pricing ($384 vs $599), Core Ultra 7 265 was $215 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers 129.3 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the Core Ultra 7 265 the 42.1% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265 | EPYC 4484PX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $384-36% | $599 |
| Performance per Dollar | 129.3+53% | 84.4 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2024 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core Ultra 7 265 and EPYC 4484PX
