Core Ultra 7 265F
EPYC 9224
Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC 9224 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 265F vs EPYC 9224 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 265F vs EPYC 9224: 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 265F
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +11.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,456 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 400.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 26.6 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $1,825 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 200W, a 135W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9224, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
EPYC 9224
2022Why buy it
- ✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅433.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (48,573 vs 49,161).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 26.6 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($1,825 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
- ❌207.7% higher power demand at 200W vs 65W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265F better than EPYC 9224?
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 265F vs EPYC 9224 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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 9224
The EPYC 9224 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 48,573 points. Launch price was $1,825.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9224 offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC 9224 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3.7 GHz on the EPYC 9224 — a 35.6% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9224 uses Genoa (2022−2023) (5 nm, 6 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC 9224's 48,573 — a 1.2% 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 9224.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC 9224 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 24 / 48+20% |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz+43% | 3.7 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz+4% |
| 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, 6 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| PassMark | 49,161+1% | 48,573 |
| 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 9224 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 4800 on the EPYC 9224 — the Core Ultra 7 265F supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9224 supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 2300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 12 (EPYC 9224). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 128 (EPYC 9224) — the EPYC 9224 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and SP5 (EPYC 9224).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC 9224 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+33% | 4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 GB | 6144 GB+2300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| 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 9224 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 9224). Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC 9224 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC 9224 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V |
| Target Use | High Performance Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265F was priced at $369, while the EPYC 9224 came in at $1825. On launch pricing ($369 vs $1825), Core Ultra 7 265F was $1456 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 26.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9224 — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 133.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC 9224 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $369-80% | $1825 |
| Performance per Dollar | 133.2+401% | 26.6 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2022 |
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 265F and EPYC 9224
