Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF vs Intel Xeon 6724P Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the outright performance winner in 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 6724P wins only 2. If you are choosing purely on measured compute output, the Core Ultra 7 265KF is the pick for nearly every workload category represented in the data. Its average benchmark score of 71910 sits just 0.7% below the Xeon 6724P's 72396, but that aggregate figure masks the Core Ultra's dominance in single-threaded, rendering, and encryption tasks. The Xeon 6724P's only wins come in integer math (20.1% ahead) and physics (37.7% ahead) — narrow but meaningful niches. For a desktop user, the Core Ultra 7 265KF is the obvious choice; for a server workload heavily weighted toward integer math or physics simulation, the Xeon 6724P justifies its existence. The data does not support picking the Xeon for general-purpose use, as its 16 cores and 32 threads lose to the Core Ultra's 20 cores and 20 threads in most multithreaded tests despite the thread deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite ends of Intel's design spectrum. The Xeon 6724P is built on Granite Rapids (Xeon 6, Granite Rapids-SP) using a 5 nm process from Intel's own foundry, targeting the Server/Workstation segment. The Core Ultra 7 265KF is Arrow Lake-S (Ultra 7, Arrow Lake) on a 3 nm process from TSMC, aimed at Desktop. The process node difference is significant: the Core Ultra uses a smaller, more advanced node, which contributes to its higher clocks and efficiency. The Xeon packs 16 cores and 32 threads with Hyper-Threading, while the Core Ultra has 20 cores and 20 threads with no Hyper-Threading — a deliberate design choice that favors raw core count over thread duplication.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and a massive 72 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, but only 30 MB shared L3. The Xeon's 72 MB L3 is more than double the Core Ultra's, which helps in server workloads with large working sets. Memory support is another chasm: the Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while the Core Ultra uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s and no ECC. The Xeon also offers 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus the Core Ultra's 20 lanes. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $3622; the Core Ultra's is $379. The Core Ultra has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not. Transistor count and die size are only listed for the Core Ultra: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265KF wins everywhere except two specific test categories. Its single-thread dominance is absolute: in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, it leads by 12.2–12.3% across the board. PassMark single-thread shows a 33.5% lead (4928 vs 3279). This translates to better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, which the data supports. In multithreaded Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra leads by 12.2–12.3% consistently, despite having 12 fewer threads — its higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz and larger L1/L2 per core overcome the Xeon's thread advantage. The Core Ultra also wins in data encryption (28.8% ahead), floating-point math (28.5%), prime number finding (23.5%), random string sorting (14.1%), and multithread (12.3%). Data compression is closer, at 5.9% ahead.

The Xeon 6724P wins only in passmark_integer_math (172216 vs 143351, a 20.1% lead) and passmark_physics (5004 vs 3633, a 37.7% lead). The physics result is the Xeon's largest victory margin across all tests. These two wins suggest the Xeon's architecture, with its larger L3 cache and eight-channel memory bandwidth, excels at integer-heavy calculation and physics simulation workloads. However, these are isolated wins — the overall benchmark count is 15-2 in favor of the Core Ultra, and the Xeon's average score advantage over the Core Ultra is a razor-thin 0.7% (72396 vs 71910), driven almost entirely by those two wins.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core, it leads by 12.2–12.3%. PassMark single-thread shows a 33.5% lead (4928 vs 3279).

Q: Does the Xeon's higher thread count help in multithreaded workloads?

A: No, not in most tests. Despite having 32 threads vs 20, the Xeon loses Cinebench R23 multicore by 12.3% (43643 vs 49736) and PassMark multithread by 12.3% (51345 vs 58518). The Core Ultra's higher clocks and newer node overcome the thread deficit.

Q: What is the Xeon 6724P best at?

A: The data shows it wins PassMark integer math by 20.1% (172216 vs 143351) and PassMark physics by 37.7% (5004 vs 3633). These are the only two tests it wins, but the physics margin is the largest of any head-to-head result.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s and no ECC. The Xeon's bandwidth is four times higher, which likely contributes to its physics and integer math wins.

Q: Which CPU has more cache?

A: The Xeon has a 72 MB shared L3, while the Core Ultra has 30 MB shared L3. However, the Core Ultra has larger per-core L1 (192 KB vs 112 KB) and L2 (3 MB vs 2 MB) caches, which helps its single-thread performance.

Q: What is the performance difference in data encryption?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF leads by 28.8% in PassMark data encryption (48198 vs 34332). This is one of the largest margins for the Core Ultra, alongside its 28.5% lead in floating-point math.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win belongs to the Xeon 6724P in PassMark physics, scoring 5004 against the Core Ultra's 3633 — a 37.7% margin. This is the only test where the Xeon exceeds a 21% lead. Its other win, integer math, is 20.1% ahead (172216 vs 143351). These two victories are substantial and indicate genuine architectural strengths.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF's biggest win is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4928 vs 3279 — a 33.5% lead. This is mirrored in the duplicate passmark_singlethread result. Following that, data encryption shows a 28.8% lead (48198 vs 34332), and floating-point math shows a 28.5% lead (189431 vs 135404). Prime number finding is 23.5% ahead (486 vs 372). Random string sorting is 14.1% ahead (79735 vs 68477). The multithread and Cinebench multiscore results cluster tightly: PassMark multithread is 12.3% ahead (58518 vs 51345), and Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore each show a 12.2–12.3% lead (5013 vs 4399, 20889 vs 18330, 49736 vs 43643). Single-core Cinebench tests all show the same 12.2–12.3% margin (707 vs 620, 2948 vs 2587, 7021 vs 6161). The narrowest win is extended instructions, where the Core Ultra leads by just 0.8% (54513 vs 54101). Data compression is the second-narrowest, at 5.9% (666589 vs 627185).

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6724P | Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF |

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

| Cores | 16 | 20 |

| Threads | 32 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 210 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) | Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 5 nm (Intel) | 3 nm (TSMC) |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 72 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | N/A |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $3622 | $379 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 243 mm² |

The Xeon's 210 W TDP is 68% higher than the Core Ultra's 125 W, reflecting its server-oriented design. The Core Ultra's 3 nm TSMC process is two nodes ahead of the Xeon's 5 nm Intel process, explaining its higher clocks at lower power. The Xeon's 88 PCIe lanes versus 20 is a major differentiator for server I/O, as is its ECC support and quad-bandwidth memory. The Core Ultra's unlocked multiplier makes it overclockable, a feature absent on the Xeon. Both CPUs lack integrated graphics. The release dates are six months apart, with the Core Ultra launching first (2024-10-23) and the Xeon following (2025-02-23). Both are listed as Active production status and both sit at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, confirming their elite tier despite their divergent market targets.