AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two processors aimed at different workloads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates the AMD EPYC 8224P in the vast majority of tests, winning 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The AMD part takes only three wins, but those wins are in specific, server-oriented tasks.

Starting with the most decisive Intel victories, the Core Ultra 7 265KF shows a massive lead in single-threaded performance. In PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel part scores 4928 against the EPYC's 2339, a 52.5% advantage. This gap is consistent across all Cinebench single-core tests, where the Intel chip leads by 22.3% to 22.4% in R15, R20, and R23. The boost clock difference is stark: the Intel part reaches 5.50 GHz while the EPYC tops out at 3.00 GHz, and that clock advantage shows up directly in every latency-sensitive workload.

Multithreaded rendering also favors Intel decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 49736 versus 38607 for the EPYC 8224P, a 22.4% margin. The same 22.4% gap appears across R15, R20, and the PassMark multi-thread test (58518 versus 45421). This is notable because the EPYC has more threads (48 versus 20), yet the Intel part still wins by a wide margin. The Arrow Lake architecture's higher per-core efficiency and 5.50 GHz boost clearly overcome the thread count disadvantage.

The most lopsided Intel win is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 7 265KF scores 486 versus 206 for the EPYC, a 57.6% difference. Floating point math also heavily favors Intel: 189431 versus 104698, a 44.7% margin. Extended instruction performance shows a 20% Intel advantage (54513 versus 43614). Data encryption is closer, with Intel ahead by 3% (48198 versus 46742), while physics simulation shows a 10.9% Intel edge (3633 versus 3236).

The AMD EPYC 8224P's three wins are meaningful despite being fewer. Its largest victory is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 185556 against 143351, a 29.4% advantage. Data compression also goes to AMD with a 5.3% lead (702065 versus 666589). Random string sorting shows a modest 2.4% AMD edge (81674 versus 79735). These are all data-processing or integer-heavy workloads, which aligns with the EPYC's server positioning.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear split recommendation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the pick for any desktop or workstation user who prioritizes raw speed, especially in single-threaded tasks, rendering, and general productivity. Its 22.4% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests, combined with a 52.5% single-thread advantage, makes it the superior choice for interactive work, gaming, and content creation where per-core performance matters most.

The AMD EPYC 8224P is the choice for specific server workloads where integer math, data compression, and string sorting dominate. Its 29.4% integer math lead and 5.3% data compression advantage indicate that database operations, financial modeling, and certain data analytics tasks could benefit from this part. The EPYC also brings 48 threads, six-channel memory support, and ECC memory, features that matter in reliability-focused environments.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall performance gap: the EPYC 8224P sits at a 95th percentile ranking with an average score of 75582, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF sits at 94th percentile with an average of 71910. The EPYC's slightly higher average is driven by its server-oriented wins, but the Intel part wins more individual tests. For most users, the Core Ultra 7 265KF's broader winning record makes it the more versatile processor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 8224P uses Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a two-die design totaling 73 mm² each. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads with a base clock of 2.55 GHz and boost of 3.00 GHz. The thermal design power is 160 W. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process with a larger 243 mm² die. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, notably no hyperthreading, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost of 5.50 GHz. Its TDP is lower at 125 W.

The transistor counts are nearly identical (17,750 million for AMD, 17,800 million for Intel), but they are deployed differently. The EPYC's cache structure includes 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 64 MB shared L3. The Intel part offers 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, but only 30 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches on Intel help explain its single-thread dominance, while AMD's larger shared L3 helps in multi-threaded server workloads.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The EPYC supports six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC is a server part with massive I/O, while the Intel chip targets desktop.

The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6 and is not multiplier-unlocked. The Intel part uses Socket 1851 and is multiplier-unlocked. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Intel part lists integrated graphics as N/A. Manufacturing is at TSMC for both, though on different nodes.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is significantly faster. It scores 4928 in PassMark single-thread versus 2339 for the EPYC, a 52.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 7021 versus 5450, a 22.4% lead.

Q: Does the EPYC's higher thread count help in multi-core workloads?

A: Not in the benchmark data. Despite having 48 threads versus 20, the EPYC loses all Cinebench multi-core tests by 22.4%. The Intel part's higher clocks and per-core efficiency overcome the thread deficit.

Q: What workloads favor the AMD EPYC 8224P?

A: The EPYC wins in PassMark integer math (29.4% ahead), data compression (5.3% ahead), and random string sorting (2.4% ahead). These are data-processing tasks common in server environments.

Q: Which CPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 8224P has a clear advantage with six-channel DDR5 delivering 230.4 GB/s, versus dual-channel 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7 265KF. The EPYC also supports ECC memory.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Both use TSMC, but different nodes. The EPYC uses 5 nm, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses 3 nm. Intel's smaller node contributes to its higher clock speeds.

Q: Which CPU is better for overclocking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 8224P is locked. Only the Intel part supports manual overclocking.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins in rendering, single-threaded applications, floating-point math, encryption, and general multi-threaded workloads. Its 22.4% lead across all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) makes it the clear choice for video editing, 3D rendering, and software compilation. The 44.7% floating-point advantage and 20% extended instruction lead further cement its position for scientific computing and media encoding. The 52.5% single-thread advantage makes it superior for web browsing, office work, and any legacy software that relies on one core.

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins specifically in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. These are database, financial, and data analytics workloads where the 29.4% integer math lead matters. The EPYC's six-channel memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s) and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide infrastructure advantages for server deployments, even if those don't show up in the benchmark scores. The 48 threads and ECC support make it suitable for virtualization and reliability-critical applications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8224P | Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF |

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

| Cores | 24 | 20 |

| Threads | 48 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 160 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,750 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 73 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $855 | $379 |