AMD EPYC 4465P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record shows a clear split between these two processors, with the AMD EPYC 4465P taking 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 5. The most dramatic margin appears in the Cinebench R20 multi-core test, where the EPYC 4465P scores 18025 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 6268, a 187.6% advantage. The single-core variant of the same test shows a similar pattern: 2544 versus 884, a 187.8% delta. These are not subtle differences; they represent fundamentally different performance profiles in that benchmark generation.

Elsewhere, the EPYC 4465P leads by smaller but still meaningful margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4326 against 4255, a 1.7% edge, and the same 1.7% advantage appears in R15 single-core (610 versus 600). Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: 42918 versus 42216 in multi-core, 6059 versus 5960 in single-core, both at 1.7%. The PassMark integer math test favors the AMD chip heavily: 174551 versus 134773, a 29.5% gap. PassMark physics also goes AMD's way, 3647 versus 2923, a 24.8% lead. Data compression shows a 10.4% advantage for the EPYC (577210 versus 522983), random string sorting goes to AMD by 5.9% (67597 versus 63833), and extended instructions favor AMD by 3.3% (42867 versus 41478). The PassMark multithread test is nearly a tie: 49871 versus 49682, a 0.4% margin for the EPYC.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins are concentrated in specific workloads. The largest is floating point math, where it scores 172776 against 105833, a 38.7% advantage for Intel. Data encryption goes to Intel by 20.4% (40456 versus 32184), and find prime numbers favors Intel by 19.1% (418 versus 338). In the PassMark single-thread tests, Intel holds a 2.4% lead: 4689 versus 4575 in both recorded variants. These wins indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265 has its own strengths, particularly in math-intensive and encryption-heavy tasks, but the overall benchmark score average tells a different story. The EPYC 4465P carries an average benchmark score of 66925 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 64640, a difference that places both chips at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 4465P is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, part of the EPYC 4005 series. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC and packs 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die layout with each die measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, on a 3 nm process also from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. The node difference is small but present, and the die layout is fundamentally different: AMD uses two smaller chiplets, Intel uses one large monolithic die.

Core counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The AMD chip relies on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count, while Intel's 20 cores all run single-threaded. Base clocks favor AMD: 3.40 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 5.40 GHz for the EPYC, 5.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265. Both have a 65 W TDP, which is notable given the EPYC's server-oriented positioning.

Cache structures are very different. The EPYC 4465P provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 30 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's larger L3 pool is a clear advantage for workloads that benefit from high-capacity shared cache, while Intel's per-core L2 is larger. Memory support is DDR5 for both, and both run dual-channel. Memory bandwidth favors Intel: 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC 4465P but not on the Core Ultra 7 265, a meaningful distinction for workstation reliability. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 CPU-only lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on both, but they are not equal. The EPYC 4465P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Core Ultra 7 265 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket AM5, Intel uses Socket 1851. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 4465P launched on 2025-05-12 with a launch MSRP of $399. The Core Ultra 7 265 launched earlier on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $394. Both are listed as Active in production.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each chip. The AMD EPYC 4465P is the stronger overall performer in the database's average benchmark score, 66925 versus 64640, and it wins the majority of head-to-head tests. Its 187.6% and 187.8% leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core are the standout results, suggesting that in those specific tests, the EPYC is in a different class entirely. The AMD chip also leads in integer math, physics, data compression, random string sorting, extended instructions, and all three Cinebench R15 and R23 tests. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 24 threads make it a credible choice for server and workstation workloads, and ECC memory support reinforces that positioning.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is not a weak chip, but its wins are narrower in overall impact. It dominates floating point math by 38.7%, which is a large margin, and it leads in data encryption and prime number finding. Its single-thread PassMark score is higher, 4689 versus 4575, but the Cinebench single-core tests all favor AMD, so the single-thread picture is mixed depending on the test. The Intel chip's 20 cores without hyperthreading give it raw core count, but the benchmark results do not translate that into a consistent multi-core advantage. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than AMD's 89.6 GB/s, but that does not produce wins in the memory-sensitive tests recorded here.

For a buyer focused on server or workstation duties, the EPYC 4465P is the data-backed choice. Its thread count, L3 cache, ECC support, and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes align with that use case, and its benchmark wins are more numerous and often larger. For a desktop buyer who prioritizes floating point math, encryption, or prime number workloads, the Core Ultra 7 265 has clear advantages, and its higher single-thread PassMark score matters for lightly threaded tasks. The launch MSRP difference is negligible, but the performance profiles are not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average benchmark score of 66925, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64640. Both rank at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How large is the AMD chip's lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 4465P scores 18025, which is 187.6% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265's 6268.

Q: What is the Intel chip's biggest winning margin?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 leads in PassMark floating point math with a score of 172776 against 105833, a 38.7% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4465P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P offers Gen 5 with 24 CPU-only lanes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU-only lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4465P wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core, PassMark data compression, extended instructions, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting. That is 12 wins total. The margins range from a 0.4% edge in multithread to the enormous 187.6% and 187.8% leads in the R20 tests. The pattern here is broad competence: the EPYC wins in rendering workloads, integer-heavy tasks, and general multithreaded throughput. Its 24 threads and 64 MB of L3 cache appear to support these results.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins in PassMark data encryption, find prime numbers, floating point math, and the two single-thread PassMark variants, for 5 wins total. The floating point math lead is substantial at 38.7%, and the encryption and prime number wins are both around 20%. These are specific, compute-heavy workloads where Intel's architecture shows an edge. The single-thread PassMark win is small, 2.4%, and it is offset by AMD's single-core wins in all three Cinebench versions. For a user who runs floating point simulations, encryption workloads, or prime number calculations, the Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger pick. For almost everything else in the recorded data, the EPYC 4465P comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every major specification. The EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clock is 3.40 GHz for AMD versus 2.40 GHz for Intel. Boost clock is 5.40 GHz for AMD versus 5.30 GHz for Intel. TDP is identical at 65 W for both. The AMD chip uses Socket AM5, while Intel uses Socket 1851. Architecture is Zen 5 for AMD and Arrow Lake for Intel. Process node is 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, both from TSMC. Transistor count is 16,630 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die size is 2x 70.6 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for AMD and 192 KB per core for Intel. L2 cache is 1 MB per core for AMD and 3 MB per core for Intel. L3 cache is 64 MB shared for AMD and 30 MB shared for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 102.4 GB/s for Intel. ECC support is present on AMD, absent on Intel. PCIe is Gen 5 with 24 lanes for AMD and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics on AMD and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU on Intel. The EPYC 4465P targets the server/workstation segment, while the Core Ultra 7 265 targets desktop. Release dates are 2025-05-12 for AMD and 2025-01-06 for Intel. Launch MSRP is $399 for AMD and $394 for Intel. Both have locked multipliers and both are Active in production.