Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC 4484PX

The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265F has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F 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 265F 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 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC 4484PX's 50,547 — a 2.8% lead for the EPYC 4484PX. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 25,459 vs 24,500 (3.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 3,000 vs 2,950, a 1.7% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 20,000 vs 17,500 (13.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265F vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 4484PX.

The Core Ultra 7 265F 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 DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus DDR5-5200 on the EPYC 4484PX — the Core Ultra 7 265F supports 23.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core Ultra 7 265F 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 265F) vs 28 (EPYC 4484PX) — the EPYC 4484PX offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and B650,X670,X870 (EPYC 4484PX).

Only the Core Ultra 7 265F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 4484PX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs AMD-V, AMD-Vi (EPYC 4484PX). The EPYC 4484PX includes integrated graphics (Radeon Graphics), while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming, EPYC 4484PX targets Workstation / Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 4484PX rivals Ryzen 9 7900X3D.

At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265F was priced at $369, while the EPYC 4484PX came in at $599. On launch pricing ($369 vs $599), Core Ultra 7 265F was $230 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 84.4 pts/$ for the EPYC 4484PX — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 44.9% better value option.

Search Core Ultra 7 265F on AmazonSearch EPYC 4484PX on Amazon

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.