Core Ultra 7 265T vs EPYC 7F52
Core Ultra 7 265T
EPYC 7F52
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core Ultra 7 265T
Performance Per Dollar EPYC 7F52
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($362) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($1,826) |
| Longevity | ✨ Modern (Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) / 3 nm) | ✨ Modern (Zen 2 (2017−2020) / 7 nm, 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+396%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($362) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($1,826) |
Performance Check
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265T and EPYC 7F52
Core Ultra 7 265T
The Core Ultra 7 265T 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 1.5 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): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 40,681 points. Launch price was $384.
EPYC 7F52
The EPYC 7F52 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 41,388 points. Launch price was $3,100.
Processing Power
The Core Ultra 7 265T packs 20 cores / 20 threads, while the EPYC 7F52 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Core Ultra 7 265T has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265T versus 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F52 — a 30.4% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265T (base: 1.5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265T uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the EPYC 7F52 uses Zen 2 (2017−2020) (7 nm, 14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265T scores 40,681 against the EPYC 7F52's 41,388 — a 1.7% lead for the EPYC 7F52. L3 cache: 30 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 265T vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F52.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20+25% | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz+36% | 3.9 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz+133% |
| L3 Cache | 30 MB (total) | 256 MB (total)+753% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core)+500% | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm-57% | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 40,681 | 41,388+2% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 34,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,954 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 16,455 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 265T uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the EPYC 7F52 uses SP3 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265T versus 3200 on the EPYC 7F52 — the EPYC 7F52 supports 199.4% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F52 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 192 GB — 182.1% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 7 265T) vs 8 (EPYC 7F52). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 7 265T) vs 128 (EPYC 7F52) — the EPYC 7F52 offers 104 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,H870,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265T) and SP3 (EPYC 7F52).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0+25% | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400 | 3200+63900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB+4915100% | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 8+300% |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 128+433% |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 7 265T has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the EPYC 7F52 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 7 265T) vs VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (EPYC 7F52). The Core Ultra 7 265T includes integrated graphics (Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core)), while the EPYC 7F52 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265T targets High End Desktop. Direct competitor: EPYC 7F52 rivals Xeon Gold 6248.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Intel Graphics (Xe-LPG 4-core) | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V |
| Target Use | High End Desktop | — |
Value Analysis
The Core Ultra 7 265T launched at $384 MSRP, while the EPYC 7F52 debuted at $3100. At current prices ($362 vs $1826), the Core Ultra 7 265T is $1464 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265T delivers 112.4 pts/$ vs 22.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 7F52 — making the Core Ultra 7 265T the 132.9% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265T | EPYC 7F52 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $384-88% | $3100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $362-80% | $1826 |
| Performance per Dollar | 112.4+395% | 22.7 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2020 |
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 265T and EPYC 7F52
