AMD EPYC 4565P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4565P and Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus occupy the same performance percentile (96th) but deliver their scores through fundamentally different architectures and benchmark profiles. The data shows a clear split: the EPYC 4565P dominates in specific computational workloads, while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus claims a broader win count of 11 versus 6. The average benchmark scores are close, with the EPYC 4565P at 95,764 and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus at 93,785, a difference of roughly 2.1% in favor of the AMD part. This is a matchup defined by workload-specific strengths rather than overall superiority.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-core victory in the entire comparison belongs to the AMD EPYC 4565P. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7,680 against the Intel’s 2,439, a delta of 214.9%. This is not a marginal edge; it is a near-tripling of the score. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story, with the EPYC 4565P at 774 and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus at 354, a 118.6% advantage for AMD. These results indicate a massive per-thread performance disparity, likely reflecting the EPYC’s higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz compared to Intel’s 5.50 GHz, though the architecture plays a larger role than the 0.20 GHz clock difference.

The multi-core picture is more nuanced. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins Cinebench R15 multi-core decisively, scoring 6,656 against 5,484, a 17.6% lead. It also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core, 24,461 to 22,850, a 6.6% margin. However, the AMD EPYC 4565P flips the script in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 54,405 versus 44,253, a 22.9% advantage. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests that the two processors scale differently with workload duration and thread utilization; the EPYC’s 32 threads versus Intel’s 24 threads become more decisive in the longer R23 test.

In PassMark workloads, the wins are split by operation type. The AMD EPYC 4565P takes integer math by a wide margin, 250,683 to 175,986, a 42.4% lead. It also wins data compression (860,786 to 804,322, a 7% edge) and extended instructions (64,345 to 63,506, a 1.3% margin). The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus counters with a 33.8% win in floating-point math (229,491 to 152,003), a 52.2% win in find prime numbers (615 to 294), and an 18.3% win in data encryption (59,097 to 48,268). The Intel part also leads in PassMark multi-thread (68,574 to 63,474, a 7.4% margin) and single-thread (5,068 to 4,712, a 7% margin).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4565P is the clear choice for workloads that rely on integer arithmetic and heavy data manipulation. The 42.4% lead in PassMark integer math is the standout figure, as is the 7% advantage in data compression. The 1.3% win in extended instructions, while narrow, shows AMD’s edge in SIMD-style operations. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result (22.9% ahead) and the single-core results (214.9% and 118.6% ahead) further cement the EPYC as a processor for both threaded rendering and lightly-threaded tasks that demand raw single-core speed. The EPYC also wins the overall average benchmark score comparison, posting 95,764 against Intel’s 93,785.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus excels in floating-point and memory-intensive operations. The 33.8% win in floating-point math is the largest PassMark victory for Intel, and the 52.2% win in find prime numbers indicates strong branch prediction and integer loop performance. The 18.3% lead in data encryption suggests superior cryptographic instruction throughput. The Intel part also wins PassMark multi-thread (7.4% ahead) and the two Cinebench multi-core tests where it leads (R15 and R20), demonstrating that its 24 threads can outperform AMD’s 32 threads in certain parallel workloads. The 7% single-thread PassMark win shows Intel retains an edge in this specific metric, despite the Cinebench single-core results favoring AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different process nodes and designs. The AMD EPYC 4565P uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts are close: 16,630 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. The die sizes differ dramatically, with the EPYC 4565P using a chiplet design of 2x 70.6 mm² versus Intel’s monolithic 243 mm² die. This explains the EPYC’s lower transistor density per area despite a similar total count.

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD EPYC 4565P has 16 cores and 32 threads, based on the Zen 5 architecture codenamed Grado. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, based on the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture. The absence of hyper-threading on the Intel part means its thread count equals its core count, while AMD’s simultaneous multi-threading doubles the thread count. The cache hierarchies also diverge: AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the AMD part likely contributes to its integer math and compression wins, while Intel’s larger per-core L1 and L2 may help with the floating-point and prime-number workloads.

Specification Differences

The socket and platform targets differ. The AMD EPYC 4565P uses AMD Socket AM5 and is classified as a Server/Workstation part, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a Desktop part. The EPYC 4565P has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz; the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The thermal design power differs, with the EPYC 4565P rated at 170 W and the Intel part at 125 W.

Memory bandwidth is a notable differentiator. The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus supports dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 4565P also supports dual-channel DDR5 but at a lower 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lane counts also differ: the EPYC 4565P provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well, with AMD offering Radeon Graphics and Intel offering Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD part is not multiplier unlocked, while the Intel part is multiplier unlocked. The release dates are also distinct: the EPYC 4565P launched on 2025-05-12, and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus launched on 2026-03-10.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P scores 7,680 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 214.9% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus’s score of 2,439.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark multi-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus wins PassMark multi-thread with a score of 68,574, which is 7.4% higher than the AMD EPYC 4565P’s score of 63,474.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P has 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus has 24 threads. The AMD part has 16 cores, and the Intel part has 24 cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus supports 115.2 GB/s of dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 4565P’s 89.6 GB/s.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P has an average benchmark score of 95,764, which is 2.1% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus’s average of 93,785.