Ultra 7 265KF vs EPYC 7451

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7451
2017
24 cores / 48 threads, 180 Watt
16.28
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.07
+128%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms EPYC 7451 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking41189
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.7897.72
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency8.5528.05
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,400$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 5390% better value for money than EPYC 7451.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 cores24 (Tetracosa-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads4820
Base clock speed2.3 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz5.5 GHz
Multiplier23no data
L1 cache96K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm3 nm
Die size192 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketTR41851
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+

Security technologies

EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR5
Maximum memory size2 TiBno data
Max memory channels8no data
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes12820

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.

EPYC 7451 16.28
Ultra 7 265KF 37.07
+128%

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.

EPYC 7451 25863
Ultra 7 265KF 58883
+128%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.28 37.07
Recency 29 June 2017 24 October 2024
Physical cores 24 20
Threads 48 20
Chip lithography 14 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 125 Watt

EPYC 7451 has 20% more physical cores and 140% more threads.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 127.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 44% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7451 in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7451 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7451 and Core Ultra 7 265KF, 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.


AMD EPYC 7451
EPYC 7451
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF
Core Ultra 7 265KF

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.


5 4 votes

Rate EPYC 7451 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 38 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7451 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.