Core Ultra 7 265HX
EPYC 7453
Core Ultra 7 265HX vs EPYC 7453 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 265HX vs EPYC 7453 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 265HX vs EPYC 7453: 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 265HX
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +23.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,120 less on MSRP ($450 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 252.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 108.8 vs 30.9 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $1,570 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 225W, a 170W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FCBGA2114 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7453, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 7453
2021Why buy it
- ✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (48,453 vs 48,975).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 30.9 vs 108.8 PassMark/$ ($1,570 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ❌309.1% higher power demand at 225W vs 55W.
- ❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 265HX moves to FCBGA2114 and DDR5.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265HX better than EPYC 7453?
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 265HX vs EPYC 7453 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Core Ultra 7 265HX
The Core Ultra 7 265HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 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: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 48,975 points. Launch price was $500.
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 265HX 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 265HX versus 3.45 GHz on the EPYC 7453 — a 42.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265HX (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.75 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7453 uses Milan (2021−2023) (7 nm+). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 48,975 against the EPYC 7453's 48,453 — a 1.1% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265HX. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265HX vs 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7453.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 7453 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 28 / 56+40% |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz+54% | 3.45 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz | 2.75 GHz+6% |
| 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-HX (2025) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| PassMark | 48,975+1% | 48,453 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,990 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 17,417 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the FCBGA2114 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 265HX versus 3200 on the EPYC 7453 — the Core Ultra 7 265HX supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7453 supports up to 4096 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 2033.3% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs 8 (EPYC 7453). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs 128 (EPYC 7453) — the EPYC 7453 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: WM880,HM870 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) and SP3,C621A (EPYC 7453).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 7453 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA2114 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+100% | 3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 4096 GB+2033% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 128+540% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 7 265HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265HX includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 7453 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 7453 rivals Xeon Platinum 8362.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 7453 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265HX was priced at $450, while the EPYC 7453 came in at $1570. On launch pricing ($450 vs $1570), Core Ultra 7 265HX was $1120 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers 108.8 pts/$ vs 30.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7453 — making the Core Ultra 7 265HX the 111.6% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 7453 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $450-71% | $1570 |
| Performance per Dollar | 108.8+252% | 30.9 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2021 |
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 265HX and EPYC 7453
