Ultra 7 265KF vs EPYC 9654P

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9654P
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
72.13
+94.6%
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.07

EPYC 9654P outperforms Core Ultra 7 265KF by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking789
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.0197.72
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency18.9528.05
Architecture codenameGenoa (2022−2023)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date10 November 2022 (2 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$10,625$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 4762% better value for money than EPYC 9654P.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 cores9620 (Icosa-Core)
Threads19220
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz5.5 GHz
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache64K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache384 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography5 nm, 6 nm3 nm
Die size12x 72 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors78,840 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 configuration21
SocketSP51851
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF. 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

EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-4800DDR5
Maximum memory size6 TiBno data
Maximum memory bandwidth460.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes12820

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 9654P 72.13
+94.6%
Ultra 7 265KF 37.07

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 9654P 114570
+94.6%
Ultra 7 265KF 58883

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 72.13 37.07
Recency 10 November 2022 24 October 2024
Physical cores 96 20
Threads 192 20
Chip lithography 5 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 9654P has a 94.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 380% more physical cores and 860% more threads.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 66.7% more advanced lithography process, and 188% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9654P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 7 265KF in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 9654P is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9654P and Core Ultra 7 265KF, 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 9654P
EPYC 9654P
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF
Core Ultra 7 265KF

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.

Community ratings

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


5 9 votes

Rate EPYC 9654P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 38 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9654P or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.