EPYC 9655P vs Ultra 7 265K

Aggregate performance score

Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
38.24
EPYC 9655P
2024
96 cores / 192 threads, 400 Watt
100.00
+162%

EPYC 9655P outperforms Core Ultra 7 265K by a whopping 162% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking831
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation90.972.42
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency28.4023.22
Architecture codenameArrow Lake-S (2024−2025)Turin (2024)
Release date24 October 2024 (recently)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$394$10,811

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265K has 3659% better value for money than EPYC 9655P.

Detailed specifications

Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores20 (Icosa-Core)96
Threads20192
Base clock speed3.9 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed5.5 GHz4.5 GHz
L1 cache112 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache3 MB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography3 nm4 nm
Die size243 mm212x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistors17,800 million99,780 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
Socket1851SP5
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
TSX+-
SIPP+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5 Depends on motherboardDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardArc Xe2 Graphics 64EUN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P.

PCIe version5.05.0
PCI Express lanes20128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ultra 7 265K 38.24
EPYC 9655P 100.00
+162%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Ultra 7 265K 59601
EPYC 9655P 155878
+162%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 38.24 100.00
Physical cores 20 96
Threads 20 192
Chip lithography 3 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 400 Watt

Ultra 7 265K has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has a 161.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 380% more physical cores and 860% more threads.

The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Ultra 7 265K in performance tests.

Note that Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 7 265K and EPYC 9655P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K
AMD EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 59 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 265K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 13 votes

Rate EPYC 9655P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Ultra 7 265K or EPYC 9655P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.