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

The AMD EPYC 4464P and Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX represent two distinct design philosophies: a 12-core server/workstation processor on a 5nm node versus a 20-core mobile processor on a 3nm node. Benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close overall contest, with the Intel part winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the AMD part securing decisive victories in specific workloads. Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with the EPYC 4464P averaging a 64823 benchmark score against 63173 for the Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in floating-point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX delivers a 161605 score against 93090 for the AMD EPYC 4464P, a 42.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a fundamental throughput advantage in FP-heavy code. The Intel part also leads in prime number finding by 15.5% (406 vs 343) and in data encryption by 9.3% (39472 vs 35816), suggesting stronger cryptographic and integer-optimized instruction execution. Single-thread performance favors Intel as well, with a 7.9% lead in Passmark single-thread (4500 vs 4146) and consistent 1% advantages across all Cinebench single-core tests.

The AMD EPYC 4464P counters with equally decisive wins in three areas. Its integer math score of 160410 beats the Intel part's 126954 by 26.4%, the second-largest margin in the comparison. Data compression shows a 12.2% advantage (574304 vs 511817), and random string sorting leads by 12.4% (70200 vs 62458). These results point to a processor that excels at data manipulation and sorting workloads, likely benefiting from its larger 64MB shared L3 cache versus 30MB on the Intel part. In multithreaded overall performance, the two are nearly identical: the Intel part leads by only 1% in Cinebench R23 multicore (40642 vs 40215) and by 1% in Passmark multithread (47985 vs 47514). Extended instructions favor Intel by 3.4% (40741 vs 39359), and physics performance shows a 3.5% Intel lead (2978 vs 2873).

The data shows a clear pattern: Intel wins the broad majority of tests, but AMD's victories are concentrated and substantial. The 26.4% integer math win and 12.4% string sorting win are not marginal differences; they represent workloads where the EPYC 4464P is categorically faster. Conversely, Intel's 42.4% FP lead is even more decisive. The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split, with the EPYC 4464P's 64823 average sitting 1% above the Core Ultra 7 265HX's 63173. This means that despite losing 14 of 17 individual tests, the AMD part's wins are large enough to lift its aggregate score above its rival.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 4464P wins only 3. However, the AMD part's victories include some of the largest margins in the comparison.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest difference is in Passmark floating-point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 161605 versus 93090 for the AMD EPYC 4464P, a 42.4% advantage for Intel.

Q: How do the two compare in overall average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P has an average benchmark score of 64823, which is 1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX's 63173. Both processors rank at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Are there workloads where the AMD EPYC 4464P is significantly faster?

A: Yes. The AMD part leads by 26.4% in integer math (160410 vs 126954), by 12.2% in data compression (574304 vs 511817), and by 12.4% in random string sorting (70200 vs 62458).

Q: Is the Intel part faster in single-threaded performance?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 4500 in Passmark single-thread versus 4146 for the AMD EPYC 4464P, a 7.9% lead. It also holds a 1% advantage in all Cinebench single-core tests.

Q: How close are the two in multithreaded Cinebench scores?

A: They are nearly identical. The Intel part leads by 1.1% in Cinebench R23 multicore (40642 vs 40215) and by 1% in Cinebench R20 multicore (17069 vs 16890) and R15 multicore (4096 vs 4053).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear workload-based recommendation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the better choice for floating-point intensive applications, encryption workloads, and tasks that benefit from higher single-thread performance. Its 42.4% lead in FP math and 9.3% lead in encryption make it the superior processor for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any code that relies heavily on vectorized math. The 7.9% single-thread advantage also makes it preferable for lightly threaded applications where per-core speed matters more than core count.

The AMD EPYC 4464P is the better choice for data-centric workloads. Its 26.4% lead in integer math and 12.4% lead in random string sorting indicate a processor that handles database operations, data compression, and sorting algorithms more efficiently. The 12.2% advantage in data compression further reinforces this profile. For server environments running data analytics, ETL pipelines, or compression-heavy workloads, the EPYC 4464P's strengths align with those requirements. Its 64MB shared L3 cache likely plays a role in these results, providing more on-die data for repetitive access patterns.

For general-purpose multithreaded performance, the two are effectively tied. The Intel part leads by only 1% in Passmark multithread and by 1.1% in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is within noise for most real-world applications. Both processors offer similar aggregate performance, as reflected in their 93rd percentile ranking and the EPYC 4464P's 1% higher average benchmark score. The AMD EPYC 4464P also carries a launch MSRP of $429, which can be stated as a point of reference, though the Intel part has no listed launch MSRP. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload favors Intel's FP and single-thread strengths or AMD's integer and data manipulation advantages.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their core configurations. The AMD EPYC 4464P has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning Intel's part has no hyperthreading. Base clocks differ significantly: 3.70 GHz for the AMD part versus 2.60 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are closer at 5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. The TDP also differs, with AMD at 65 and Intel at 55.

Socket and form factor are entirely different: the EPYC 4464P uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The AMD part is a server/workstation processor, while the Intel part targets mobile. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for AMD, though both support DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part but not on the Intel part. PCIe lanes differ as well: the AMD part provides 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus 20 for Intel. Integrated graphics differ, with the AMD part featuring Radeon Graphics and the Intel part featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The AMD part was released on 2024-05-20, while the Intel part came later on 2025-01-12.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is substantial. The AMD EPYC 4464P is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, part of the EPYC 4004 series generation. It uses a 5nm process node from TSMC with 13,140 million transistors across a 2x 71 mm² die size. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX uses Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-HX, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is built on a 3nm process node from TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies reveal different design priorities. The AMD part provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The Intel part offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and only 30 MB shared L3. The AMD part's larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB) correlates with its wins in data compression and string sorting, where larger working sets can reside on-die. The Intel part's larger per-core L2 (3 MB vs 1 MB) may contribute to its single-thread advantage. Transistor count is higher on Intel (17,800 million vs 13,140 million), but the AMD part uses a smaller total die area (2x 71 mm² = 142 mm² vs 243 mm²). Both use TSMC as the foundry, but on different process nodes. The AMD part supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not, and the AMD part provides more PCIe lanes (28 vs 20). These architectural differences explain the benchmark patterns: AMD's larger shared cache and ECC support suit server data workloads, while Intel's newer 3nm process, higher transistor count, and larger per-core caches support its FP and single-thread advantages.