AMD EPYC 7413 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7413 and Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF represent two fundamentally different approaches to computing: one is a 24-core server processor built for throughput and stability, while the other is a 20-core desktop flagship designed for raw speed and responsiveness. The data shows a near-total split in their benchmark results, with the Intel part winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests and the AMD part winning 5. Their average benchmark scores are remarkably close—80041 for the EPYC versus 79240 for the Ultra 7—yet the way they achieve those scores could not be more different. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, what architectural choices drive those results, and who should choose which based solely on the measured performance data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has an average benchmark score of 80041, placing it 1% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF, which scores 79240. Both sit in the 97th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates in single-thread tests, scoring 4910 in PassMark single-thread compared to the EPYC's 2400—a 51.1% difference. This gap is consistent across all Cinebench single-core tests, where Intel leads by 14% in each.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins the Cinebench multi-core tests, scoring 50049 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the EPYC's 43044 (a 14% lead). However, the EPYC wins PassMark integer math with a 49.9% advantage, showing workload-dependent results.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The EPYC supports simultaneous multithreading; the Intel part does not.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The EPYC 7413 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ultra 7 265KF uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

Q: Which processor is newer and built on a smaller process node?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF was released in October 2024 and uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7413 launched in March 2021 on a 7 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the clear winner in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4910 is more than double the EPYC's 2400, and it leads by 14% across every Cinebench single-core test (R15, R20, R23). This advantage extends to floating-point math, where Intel scores 190482 versus 118881 (a 37.6% lead), and to extended instructions, where it leads 54627 to 45696 (16.3%). For applications that rely on high clock speeds and per-core efficiency—such as interactive work, gaming, or lightly threaded productivity—the Ultra 7 265KF is the decisive choice.

The AMD EPYC 7413 wins in specific throughput-oriented tasks that benefit from its 48 threads and large cache. Its PassMark integer math score of 215629 crushes the Intel part's 143811 by 49.9%, and it wins data compression 715616 to 669683 (6.9% lead). The EPYC also takes PassMark physics with 4708 versus 3774 (a 24.7% advantage) and edge out a narrow win in random string sorting (81134 vs 80235, 1.1%). Data encryption is essentially a tie, with the EPYC ahead by just 0.1% (48492 vs 48426). For server-style workloads, database operations, or heavily parallel integer processing, the EPYC 7413 holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7413 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and targets the server/workstation segment on the AMD Socket SP3 platform. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC with 16,600 million transistors spread across four 81 mm² dies. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) on Intel Socket 1851, fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors in a single 243 mm² die. The process node difference is stark: Intel's part uses a much smaller 3 nm node versus AMD's 7 nm, though the EPYC's multi-die design allows for separate chiplets.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC 7413 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 7 265KF offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 30 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 128 MB L3 is over four times larger, which likely contributes to its wins in compression and integer math where large working sets can be cached locally. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (3x and 6x the EPYC's per-core values, respectively) support its single-thread speed.

Memory and I/O also diverge. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while the Ultra 7 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s and no ECC. The EPYC provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, whereas the Intel part offers 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $1825; the Ultra 7's is $379. The Intel processor has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The EPYC 7413 has 24 cores and 48 threads versus 20 cores and 20 threads for the Ultra 7 265KF. Base clocks are 2.65 GHz for AMD and 3.90 GHz for Intel, with boost clocks of 3.60 GHz and 5.50 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power is 180 W for the EPYC and 125 W for the Intel part. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support is split between DDR4 (EPYC) and DDR5 (Ultra 7), with the EPYC running eight-channel and the Ultra 7 dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is exactly double on the EPYC: 204.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. PCIe generations differ (Gen 4 vs Gen 5), as do lane counts (128 vs 20). The EPYC is a server/workstation part with the part number 100-000000323100-100000323WOF; the Ultra 7 is a desktop part with part number SRQCU. The Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result is PassMark single-thread, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 4910 versus the EPYC's 2400—a 51.1% margin. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and underscores the fundamental clock-speed advantage (5.50 GHz boost vs 3.60 GHz). The same pattern appears in PassMark floating-point math, where Intel leads 190482 to 118881 (37.6% ahead), and in PassMark find prime numbers, with Intel ahead 491 to 397 (19.1%). Extended instructions also favor Intel by 16.3% (54627 vs 45696).

Across all three Cinebench versions, the Ultra 7 265KF wins both single-core and multi-core by exactly 14%. For example, in Cinebench R23, Intel scores 50049 multi-core and 7065 single-core, while the EPYC scores 43044 and 6076. The same 14% delta appears in R15 and R20, indicating a consistent performance advantage in these rendering workloads. PassMark multithread also goes to Intel by 14% (58878 vs 50641).

The AMD EPYC 7413's biggest win is PassMark integer math, where it scores 215629 versus 143811—a massive 49.9% advantage. This is the largest win for either side and suggests the EPYC's 48 threads and 128 MB L3 cache are highly effective for integer-heavy parallel tasks. The EPYC also wins PassMark physics by 24.7% (4708 vs 3774) and data compression by 6.9% (715616 vs 669683). Random string sorting is a narrow 1.1% win for AMD (81134 vs 80235), and data encryption is essentially tied at 48492 versus 48426 (0.1% for AMD).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the better choice for anyone prioritizing single-thread speed, floating-point math, and rendering performance. Its 51.1% lead in PassMark single-thread and 37.6% lead in floating-point math make it the superior processor for desktop applications, creative workloads, and any task where clock speed matters more than core count. The 14% advantage across all Cinebench tests reinforces this, as does the 16.3% lead in extended instructions.

The AMD EPYC 7413 is the pick for server and workstation environments where integer throughput and massive caching are paramount. Its 49.9% win in integer math and 24.7% win in physics demonstrate that its 48-thread design with 128 MB of L3 cache delivers exceptional parallel integer performance. The 6.9% advantage in data compression and the eight-channel memory system with ECC support make it suitable for database, virtualization, or memory-intensive enterprise workloads. Its launch MSRP of $1825 reflects its server positioning.

For a desktop user building a high-performance system, the Ultra 7 265KF wins 12 of 17 benchmarks and offers a 5.50 GHz boost clock, 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and an unlocked multiplier. For a rack-mounted server processing integer-heavy transactions, the EPYC 7413's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, ECC memory, and 49.9% integer math lead are decisive. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, but the workload profile dictates the correct choice.