Core Ultra 7 265HX
EPYC 9115
Core Ultra 7 265HX vs EPYC 9115 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 9115 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 9115: 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: +19.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $276 less on MSRP ($450 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 63.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 108.8 vs 66.6 PassMark/$ ($450 MSRP vs $726 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 55W instead of 125W, a 70W reduction.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while EPYC 9115 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (30 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 9115, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.
EPYC 9115
2024Why buy it
- ✅+113.3% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅540% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265HX across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (48,343 vs 48,975).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 66.6 vs 108.8 PassMark/$ ($726 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ❌127.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 55W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Core Ultra 7 265HX can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core Ultra 7 265HX better than EPYC 9115?
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 9115 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 9115
The EPYC 9115 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 October 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Turin (2024) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 48,343 points. Launch price was $726.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265HX packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 9115 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265HX has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265HX versus 4.1 GHz on the EPYC 9115 — a 25.5% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265HX (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 9115 uses Turin (2024) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 48,975 against the EPYC 9115's 48,343 — a 1.3% 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 9115.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20+25% | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz+29% | 4.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 30 MB (total) | 64 MB (total)+113% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+200% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-25% | 4 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-HX (2025) | Turin (2024) |
| PassMark | 48,975+1% | 48,343 |
| 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 9115 uses SP5 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265HX versus 4800 on the EPYC 9115 — the Core Ultra 7 265HX supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9115 supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs 12 (EPYC 9115). PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs 128 (EPYC 9115) — the EPYC 9115 offers 108 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: WM880,HM870 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) and SP5 (EPYC 9115).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA2114 | SP5 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400+33% | 4800 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 6144 GB+3100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 12+500% |
| 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. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 9115). The Core Ultra 7 265HX includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU), while the EPYC 9115 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 9115 rivals Xeon Platinum 8468X.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| 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, AMD-V |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265HX was priced at $450, while the EPYC 9115 came in at $726. On launch pricing ($450 vs $726), Core Ultra 7 265HX was $276 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers 108.8 pts/$ vs 66.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9115 — making the Core Ultra 7 265HX the 48.2% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | EPYC 9115 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $450-38% | $726 |
| Performance per Dollar | 108.8+63% | 66.6 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2024 |
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 9115
