EPYC 9475F vs Ultra 7 265KF
Primary details
Comparing Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 73 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 29.53 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $379 | $7,592 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 20 (Icosa-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.5 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 112 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 243 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 17,800 million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | 1851 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 20 | 48 |
| Threads | 20 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 400 Watt |
Ultra 7 265KF has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9475F, on the other hand, has 140% more physical cores and 380% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop processor while EPYC 9475F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9475F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
