AMD EPYC 7352 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. Across 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF claims 16 victories, while the AMD EPYC 7352 manages a single win. The scale of Intel's dominance varies wildly by workload, from a narrow 0.9% edge in data compression to a staggering 149% lead in single-thread performance.

Starting with the most extreme disparity, the PassMark single-thread test shows the Core Ultra 7 265KF scoring 4928 against the EPYC 7352's 1979, a 149% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset and sets the tone for the entire comparison. The Intel part's 5.50 GHz boost clock versus the AMD's 3.20 GHz explains much of this gap, but the architectural efficiency differences amplify it further.

The Cinebench suite reinforces the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 49736 versus 34314 for AMD, a 44.9% lead. The single-core variant shows the same 44.9% delta, with Intel at 7021 and AMD at 4844. Interestingly, the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests both show a 45% advantage for Intel, while single-core tests in those same suites show 44.9% deltas. This consistency across generations of the Cinebench benchmark suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Floating-point math presents the second-largest victory for Intel. The PassMark floating-point test shows Intel scoring 189431 against AMD's 87969, a 115.3% delta. This is particularly notable because the EPYC 7352 has more cores (24 versus 20) and dramatically more threads (48 versus 20). Despite the thread count disadvantage, Intel's per-core floating-point capability overwhelms AMD's raw core count.

Prime number finding shows a 61.5% Intel advantage (486 versus 301), while extended instructions and physics tests show 35.6% and 35.2% deltas respectively. The Intel chip scores 54513 in extended instructions versus 40203 for AMD, and 3633 versus 2688 in physics.

The PassMark multi-thread test shows Intel at 58518 versus 40370, a 45% lead. This is remarkable given that the EPYC 7352 has 48 threads to Intel's 20. The EPYC's thread count advantage does not translate into multi-threaded performance supremacy in this test.

Random string sorting shows a more moderate 15.2% Intel advantage (79735 versus 69231), while data encryption shows an 8.5% Intel edge (48198 versus 44426). Data compression is the closest contest, with Intel scoring 666589 versus 660712, a razor-thin 0.9% margin.

The sole AMD victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the EPYC 7352 scores 148605 versus Intel's 143351, a 3.5% advantage. This is the only test where AMD's additional cores and threads overcome Intel's per-core efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests a clear split in workload characteristics. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the decisive winner in nearly every category that benefits from high clock speeds and modern architectural efficiency. Single-threaded workloads, floating-point calculations, encryption, compression, and physics simulations all fall firmly in Intel's camp. The 149% single-thread delta and 115.3% floating-point advantage are the standout indicators.

The AMD EPYC 7352's lone victory in integer math hints at its potential in specific integer-heavy server workloads. The 3.5% margin is modest, but it demonstrates that the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads can be leveraged when the workload scales well across many threads and relies on integer operations. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, while not directly benchmarked in the head-to-head tests, suggest it would excel in memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios, though the recorded data does not include such tests.

For desktop users, content creators, and anyone running single-threaded or moderately threaded applications, the Intel part is the clear choice based on benchmark results. For server environments where integer throughput and massive thread counts matter, the EPYC 7352 shows a narrow but real advantage in that specific domain.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the AMD EPYC 7352 uses Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap: Intel's 3 nm process allows higher clock speeds (5.50 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz) while maintaining a lower TDP of 125 watts versus AMD's 155 watts.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The Intel chip has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The AMD chip has 24 cores and 48 threads, providing 2x thread scaling. This is a massive thread count advantage for AMD, yet the benchmark data shows Intel winning multi-threaded tests by 45% in Cinebench and PassMark multi-thread. This indicates that Intel's per-core IPC and clock speed advantages more than compensate for the thread deficit.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB across the four dies. The EPYC's 128 MB total L3 is substantially larger, which could benefit certain cache-heavy workloads, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into wins.

Memory support represents a major divergence. The Intel chip uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the Intel part, and it supports ECC memory while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Intel chip offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the AMD chip offers Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes.

The die configurations reveal different manufacturing strategies. Intel uses a single 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors. AMD uses a chiplet design with four 74 mm² dies totaling 15,200 million transistors. The physical design choices reflect their target markets: Intel's monolithic approach for desktop, AMD's multi-die approach for server scalability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates single-thread tests. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4928 versus 1979 for the AMD EPYC 7352, a 149% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 7021 versus 4844, a 44.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7352's 48 threads beat the Intel chip's 20 threads in multi-threaded workloads?

A: No. Despite having 28 more threads, the EPYC 7352 loses all multi-threaded head-to-head tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows Intel at 49736 versus 34314, a 44.9% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows Intel at 58518 versus 40370, a 45% advantage.

Q: What is the only benchmark where the AMD EPYC 7352 wins?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 wins PassMark integer math with a score of 148605 versus Intel's 143351, a 3.5% margin. This is the sole victory in 17 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The AMD EPYC 7352 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support.

Q: Which processor has a larger total L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has 128 MB of total L3 cache (32 MB per die across four dies). The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel chip has a 3.90 GHz base clock and 5.50 GHz boost clock. The AMD chip has a 2.30 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost clock. Intel's boost clock is 2.30 GHz higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF | AMD EPYC 7352 |

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

| Cores | 20 | 24 |

| Threads | 20 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 155 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | 15,200 million |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die), 128 MB total |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $379 | $1350 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers an unambiguous verdict for performance-focused users. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 0.9% to 149%. Its single-thread, floating-point, and multi-thread performance are all decisively superior despite having 4 fewer cores and 28 fewer threads than the AMD EPYC 7352.

The Intel chip's 3 nm process, 5.50 GHz boost clock, and modern Arrow Lake architecture combine to deliver exceptional per-core performance. The 45% multi-thread lead in Cinebench R23, achieved with 20 threads versus 48, is the most telling statistic. It demonstrates that raw thread count cannot compensate for architectural efficiency and clock speed in these workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7352's single win in integer math indicates it remains competitive in that specific niche. Its 128 MB of L3 cache, eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support make it viable for server environments where those features matter. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also provide connectivity options that the Intel chip cannot match.

For desktop use, content creation, and applications that benefit from high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the clear choice based on recorded data. For server workloads specifically focused on integer throughput and requiring ECC memory and massive PCIe lane counts, the AMD EPYC 7352 retains a narrow but real advantage. The data supports Intel for nearly every general-purpose computing scenario, with AMD's value concentrated in its specific server-oriented features and the single integer math benchmark.