Core Ultra 7 265F
EPYC Embedded 8224P
Core Ultra 7 265F vs EPYC Embedded 8224P 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 Embedded 8224P 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 Embedded 8224P: 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: +14.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $486 less on MSRP ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 133.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 133.2 vs 57.2 PassMark/$ ($369 MSRP vs $855 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 160W, a 95W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC Embedded 8224P, which brings 24 cores / 48 threads and 96 PCIe lanes.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
EPYC Embedded 8224P
2023Why buy it
- ✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 24 cores / 48 threads, plus 96 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅300% more PCIe lanes (96 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265F across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (48,869 vs 49,161).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 57.2 vs 133.2 PassMark/$ ($855 MSRP vs $369 MSRP).
- ❌146.2% higher power demand at 160W vs 65W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265F better than EPYC Embedded 8224P?
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 Embedded 8224P 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 Embedded 8224P
The EPYC Embedded 8224P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 24 cores and 48 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 160 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,869 points. Launch price was $800.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265F packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 24 cores / 48 threads — the EPYC Embedded 8224P has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 3 GHz on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — a 55.4% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.55 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC Embedded 8224P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the EPYC Embedded 8224P's 48,869 — a 0.6% 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 Embedded 8224P.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC Embedded 8224P |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 24 / 48+20% |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz+77% | 3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.55 GHz+6% |
| 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 |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Siena (2023−2024) |
| PassMark | 49,161 | 48,869 |
| 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 Embedded 8224P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 4800 on the EPYC Embedded 8224P — the Core Ultra 7 265F supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC Embedded 8224P supports up to 1152 GB of RAM compared to 256 GB — 350% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) vs 96 (EPYC Embedded 8224P) — the EPYC Embedded 8224P offers 72 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and SP6 (EPYC Embedded 8224P).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC Embedded 8224P |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP6 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+33% | 4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 GB | 1152 GB+350% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 96+300% |
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 Embedded 8224P 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 Embedded 8224P). Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: EPYC Embedded 8224P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC Embedded 8224P |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Embedded 8224P came in at $855. On launch pricing ($369 vs $855), Core Ultra 7 265F was $486 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 133.2 pts/$ vs 57.2 pts/$ for the EPYC Embedded 8224P — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 79.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | EPYC Embedded 8224P |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $369-57% | $855 |
| Performance per Dollar | 133.2+133% | 57.2 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2023 |
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 Embedded 8224P
