Core Ultra 7 265HX vs EPYC 9115

CPU

GPU

Core Ultra 7 265HX

20 Cores20 Thrd55 WWMax: 5.3 GHz2025

Popular choices:

•••••••••

EPYC 9115

16 Cores32 Thrd125 WWMax: 4.1 GHz2024

Popular choices:

•••••••••

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Core Ultra 7 265HX

20 / 20

48,975

+1.3%

48,343

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 265HX

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.5% higher average FPS across 4 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

2024

Why 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 4 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.

Core Ultra 7 265HX

2025

EPYC 9115

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +28.5% higher average FPS across 4 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.

Why 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

❌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.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core Ultra 7 265HX across 4 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?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 9115 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 265HX 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 265HX is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 28.5% 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 265HX is the better fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 20 cores and 20 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 265HX is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 265HX is $276 cheaper on MSRP at $450 MSRP versus $726 MSRP, and it gives you a 28.5% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 63.4% better value on MSRP (108.8 vs 66.6 PassMark/$), 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 265HX is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and more multi-core headroom with 20 cores / 20 threads instead of 16/32. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 265HX Benchmark Check

EPYC 9115 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265HX	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	280 FPS	164 FPS
medium	273 FPS	135 FPS
high	228 FPS	114 FPS
ultra	192 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	226 FPS	144 FPS
medium	194 FPS	116 FPS
high	156 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	136 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	151 FPS	68 FPS
medium	129 FPS	58 FPS
high	100 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	87 FPS	37 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265HX Open EPYC 9115

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265HX	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	696 FPS	490 FPS
medium	595 FPS	436 FPS
high	499 FPS	338 FPS
ultra	450 FPS	291 FPS
1440p
low	607 FPS	422 FPS
medium	540 FPS	380 FPS
high	453 FPS	305 FPS
ultra	385 FPS	247 FPS
4K
low	357 FPS	264 FPS
medium	325 FPS	240 FPS
high	305 FPS	208 FPS
ultra	266 FPS	182 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265HX Open EPYC 9115

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265HX	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	839 FPS	707 FPS
medium	685 FPS	592 FPS
high	610 FPS	538 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	478 FPS
1440p
low	727 FPS	545 FPS
medium	596 FPS	454 FPS
high	519 FPS	407 FPS
ultra	441 FPS	355 FPS
4K
low	515 FPS	397 FPS
medium	434 FPS	318 FPS
high	394 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	228 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265HX Open EPYC 9115

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 265HX	EPYC 9115
1080p
low	998 FPS	860 FPS
medium	903 FPS	785 FPS
high	784 FPS	679 FPS
ultra	712 FPS	601 FPS
1440p
low	817 FPS	680 FPS
medium	726 FPS	601 FPS
high	628 FPS	516 FPS
ultra	558 FPS	447 FPS
4K
low	557 FPS	495 FPS
medium	503 FPS	445 FPS
high	451 FPS	391 FPS
ultra	398 FPS	335 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 265HX Open EPYC 9115

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265HX and EPYC 9115

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 EPYC 9115 supports 199.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9115 supports up to 6144 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 187.9% 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	4800+95900%
Max RAM Capacity	192 GB+3276700%	6144
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

The Core Ultra 7 265HX launched at $450 MSRP, while the EPYC 9115 debuted at $726. On MSRP ($450 vs $726), the Core Ultra 7 265HX is $276 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers 108.8 pts/$ vs 66.6 pts/$ for the EPYC 9115 — making the Core Ultra 7 265HX the 48.2% better value option.