Ultra 7 265 vs EPYC 7232P

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7232P
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 120 Watt
11.07
Core Ultra 7 265
2025
20 cores / 20 threads, 65 Watt
29.11
+163%

Core Ultra 7 265 outperforms EPYC 7232P by a whopping 163% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking707150
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.18no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency8.7942.68
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)January 2025 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$450no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads1620
Base clock speed3.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz5.3 GHz
Multiplier31no data
L1 cache96K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache32 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm3 nm
Die size192 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketTR41851
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5
Maximum memory size4 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataArc Xe2 Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7232P 11.07
Ultra 7 265 29.11
+163%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7232P 17731
Ultra 7 265 46618
+163%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.07 29.11
Physical cores 8 20
Threads 16 20
Chip lithography 7 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

Ultra 7 265 has a 163% higher aggregate performance score, 150% more physical cores and 25% more threads, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 84.6% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7232P in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7232P is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7232P and Core Ultra 7 265, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7232P
EPYC 7232P
Intel Core Ultra 7 265
Core Ultra 7 265

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


1.3 125 votes

Rate EPYC 7232P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 10 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7232P or Core Ultra 7 265, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.