EPYC 9135 vs Ultra 7 265KF
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms EPYC 9135 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 89 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 97.72 | 29.26 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 28.08 | 17.31 |
| Architecture codename | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $379 | $1,214 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ultra 7 265KF has 234% better value for money than EPYC 9135.
Detailed specifications
Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135 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 cores | 20 (Icosa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.5 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 112 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 243 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 17,800 million | 16,630 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135 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 configuration | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | 1851 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135 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 265KF and EPYC 9135 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 265KF and EPYC 9135. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.07 | 36.56 |
| Physical cores | 20 | 16 |
| Threads | 20 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 200 Watt |
Ultra 7 265KF has a 1.4% higher aggregate performance score, 25% more physical cores, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9135, on the other hand, has 60% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135.
Note that Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop processor while EPYC 9135 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core Ultra 7 265KF and EPYC 9135, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
