AMD EPYC 4464P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4464P and Intel Core Ultra 7 265F are two very different processors that nonetheless land in the same performance neighborhood. The EPYC 4464P, a 12-core/24-thread Zen 4 part for AMD Socket AM5, carries an average benchmark score of 64,823 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 265F, a 20-core/20-thread Arrow Lake part for Intel Socket 1851, averages 64,438 and also sits in the 93rd percentile. The head-to-head data shows the Intel part winning 13 of 17 benchmarks, but the AMD part takes four decisive wins in workloads where its architecture holds a clear edge. The overall averages are within 0.6% of each other, making this a matchup decided by workload characteristics rather than raw performance dominance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F establishes a consistent lead across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 41,980 against the EPYC's 40,215, a 4.2% advantage. The same 4.2% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,231 vs 4,053) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (17,631 vs 16,890). Single-core results follow the same pattern: the Intel part wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 5,926 versus 5,677, again a 4.2% gap. This uniformity across all six Cinebench tests suggests a consistent per-thread performance advantage for the Intel architecture, not a workload-specific quirk.

The gap widens dramatically in PassMark floating-point math. The Intel part scores 173,855 compared to the EPYC's 93,090, a massive 46.5% lead. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The Intel part also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 17.5% (416 vs 343) and PassMark single-thread by 12.7% (4,750 vs 4,146). PassMark physics goes to Intel by 9.4% (3,172 vs 2,873), and data encryption favors Intel by 9.3% (39,468 vs 35,816). PassMark multithread also goes Intel's way, with 49,410 versus 47,514, a 3.8% margin.

The AMD EPYC 4464P wins are fewer but substantial. PassMark data compression shows the EPYC at 574,304 versus 507,018, a 13.3% lead. PassMark integer math goes to AMD by 16.2% (160,410 vs 138,078). PassMark random string sorting favors AMD by 12.4% (70,200 vs 62,439). The narrowest win is PassMark extended instructions, where AMD scores 39,359 against Intel's 39,235, a marginal 0.3% edge. Notably, the Intel wins in floating-point math and prime numbers are far larger in percentage terms than the AMD wins in compression and integer math, but the AMD wins still represent meaningful workload categories.

Where Each One Wins

The core split is clean. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every Cinebench benchmark, every single-threaded PassMark test, and dominates in floating-point math, physics, encryption, and prime-number calculation. This points to a processor that excels in rendering workloads (Cinebench), scientific computing, cryptographic tasks, and any application that relies heavily on floating-point throughput. The 46.5% lead in floating-point math is particularly notable for simulation and analytical workloads. The 12.7% single-thread lead also suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications.

The AMD EPYC 4464P wins in data compression by 13.3%, integer math by 16.2%, and random string sorting by 12.4%. These are classic server-oriented workloads: database operations, file compression, and general integer-heavy data processing. The EPYC's 64 MB of shared L3 cache is double the Intel's 30 MB, which likely explains its advantage in data handling tasks that benefit from large resident datasets. The near-tie in extended instructions (0.3% for AMD) suggests parity in vectorized instruction throughput despite the Intel part's overall floating-point advantage.

For mixed workloads, PassMark multithread gives the overall edge to Intel by 3.8%, but the EPYC's architecture clearly handles certain data-centric tasks better. The EPYC also wins in integer math, which is the backbone of many enterprise applications. The Intel part is the better all-rounder; the AMD part is the better specialist for compression and integer-heavy server tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 4464P uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 13,140 million transistors across a 2x 71 mm² die configuration. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die.

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC has 12 cores and 24 threads, leveraging simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part has 20 cores but only 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. Despite having 8 more physical cores, the Intel part only manages a 3.8% lead in PassMark multithread and a 4.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The EPYC's thread count partially compensates for its lower core count, but the Intel part's higher per-thread performance (12.7% single-thread lead in PassMark) carries the day.

Cache hierarchies are markedly different. The EPYC provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with a shared 64 MB L3. The Intel part provides 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, with a shared 30 MB L3. The EPYC's larger L3 likely drives its compression and string-sorting wins. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 may contribute to its single-thread advantage.

Clock speeds favor AMD on paper: the EPYC has a 3.70 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost, while the Intel part has a 2.40 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. Both have a 65 W TDP. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s, both dual-channel DDR5. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not. PCIe lanes favor AMD at 28 Gen 5 lanes versus 20 for Intel. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the Intel part has no integrated graphics. The EPYC targets the Server/Workstation segment, while the Intel part targets Desktop.

The Verdict

The data points to clear use-case separation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the better choice for rendering, floating-point computation, and general desktop performance. It wins every Cinebench benchmark, takes PassMark multithread by 3.8%, and dominates floating-point math by 46.5%. For users running Blender, MATLAB, or similar floating-point-heavy applications, the Intel part is the stronger option based strictly on benchmark results.

The AMD EPYC 4464P is the better choice for data compression, integer math, and string sorting. Its 13.3% compression win, 16.2% integer math win, and 12.4% string-sorting win make it attractive for database servers, file compression services, and enterprise data pipelines. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability that the Intel part lacks, and offers more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20) for expansion. The EPYC's server market segment and ECC support give it a functional edge in workstation environments despite losing the overall benchmark count.

For a mixed workload where neither compression nor floating-point dominates, the Intel part's 3.8% PassMark multithread lead and 4.2% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead make it the safer all-rounder. The EPYC's 0.6% higher average benchmark score (64,823 vs 64,438) is within noise and driven by its compression and integer wins. The verdict: choose the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F for general performance and floating-point tasks; choose the AMD EPYC 4464P for data-centric server workloads where ECC support and integer throughput matter more.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P has an average benchmark score of 64,823, compared to 64,438 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F, a difference of 0.6%.

Q: How many benchmarks does each processor win in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 4464P wins 4.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 173,855 versus 93,090 for the AMD EPYC 4464P, a 46.5% lead for Intel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4464P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4464P | Intel Core Ultra 7 265F |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 20 |

| Threads | 24 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raphael | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 13,140 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 71 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | N/A |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $429 | $379 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001478 | SRQCV |