Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC 7453

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 Cores20 Thrd65 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 7453

28 Cores56 Thrd225 WWMax: 3.45 GHz2021

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265F

20 / 20

49,161

+1.5%

48,453

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 7 265F

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,201 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Delivers 331.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 30.9 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7453, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

EPYC 7453

2021

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,453 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.9 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($1,570 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265F moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 265F

2025

EPYC 7453

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +39.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,201 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Delivers 331.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 30.9 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 225W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on LGA1851 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7453, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (48,453 vs 49,161).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.9 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($1,570 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
❌246.2% higher power demand at 225W vs 65W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265F moves to LGA1851 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 265F better than EPYC 7453?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7453 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265F is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 265F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 39.2% more average FPS across 4 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 265F is the better fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265F is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265F is $1,201 cheaper on MSRP at $369 MSRP versus $1,570 MSRP, and it gives you a 39.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 331.7% better value on MSRP (133.2 vs 30.9 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 265F is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2021), a healthier platform with LGA1851 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 28/56. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 7 265F Benchmark Check

EPYC 7453 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
1080p
low	280 FPS	164 FPS
medium	273 FPS	135 FPS
high	227 FPS	114 FPS
ultra	191 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	143 FPS
medium	194 FPS	115 FPS
high	155 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	69 FPS
medium	129 FPS	58 FPS
high	99 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 7453

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
1080p
low	695 FPS	395 FPS
medium	593 FPS	350 FPS
high	498 FPS	287 FPS
ultra	448 FPS	229 FPS
1440p
low	605 FPS	334 FPS
medium	539 FPS	301 FPS
high	452 FPS	255 FPS
ultra	384 FPS	195 FPS
4K
low	356 FPS	206 FPS
medium	324 FPS	189 FPS
high	305 FPS	161 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	129 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 7453

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
1080p
low	839 FPS	649 FPS
medium	685 FPS	530 FPS
high	610 FPS	471 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	413 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	502 FPS
medium	596 FPS	409 FPS
high	519 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	311 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	371 FPS
medium	434 FPS	289 FPS
high	394 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	199 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 7453

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
1080p
low	995 FPS	886 FPS
medium	901 FPS	807 FPS
high	782 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	709 FPS	611 FPS
1440p
low	814 FPS	696 FPS
medium	724 FPS	608 FPS
high	627 FPS	522 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	447 FPS
4K
low	555 FPS	499 FPS
medium	501 FPS	445 FPS
high	449 FPS	390 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	338 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265F Open EPYC 7453

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265F and EPYC 7453

Core Ultra 7 265F

The Core Ultra 7 265F 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: 49,161 points. Launch price was $379.

EPYC 7453

The EPYC 7453 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.75 GHz, with boost up to 3.45 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 48,453 points. Launch price was $1,570.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7453 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the EPYC 7453 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3.45 GHz on the EPYC 7453 — a 42.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.75 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7453 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC 7453's 48,453 — a 1.5% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265F vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7453.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
Cores / Threads	20 / 20	28 / 56+40%
Boost Clock	5.3 GHz+54%	3.45 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.75 GHz+15%
L3 Cache	30 MB (total)	64 MB (total)+113%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	3 nm-57%	7 nm+
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Milan (2021−2023)
PassMark	49,161+1%	48,453
Cinebench R23 Multi	25,459	—
Geekbench 6 Single	3,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	20,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7453 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3200 on the EPYC 7453 — the EPYC 7453 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7453 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 256 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 8 (EPYC 7453). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 128 (EPYC 7453) — the EPYC 7453 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and SP3,C621A (EPYC 7453).

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
Socket	LGA1851	SP3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	3200+63900%
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+6553500%	4096
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	128+433%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core Ultra 7 265F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 7453 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 7453 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 265F	EPYC 7453
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	High Performance Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 265F launched at $369 MSRP, while the EPYC 7453 debuted at $1570. On MSRP ($369 vs $1570), the Core Ultra 7 265F is $1201 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 30.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7453 — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 124.8% better value option.