Ultra 7 265T vs EPYC 8434P
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 57 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.41 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 19.81 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (1 year ago) | January 2025 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,700 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T 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 | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 96 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T 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 | 1 |
| Socket | SP6 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T 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 EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T. 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 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 48 | 20 |
| Threads | 96 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 35 Watt |
EPYC 8434P has 140% more physical cores and 380% more threads.
Ultra 7 265T, on the other hand, has a 66.7% more advanced lithography process, and 471.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 8434P is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265T is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 8434P and Core Ultra 7 265T, 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.
