Ultra 7 251HX vs EPYC 7F72
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F72 outperforms Core Ultra 7 251HX by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 206 | 244 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.14 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | Intel Arrow Lake |
| Power efficiency | 5.22 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2019−2020) | Arrow Lake-HX (2025−2026) |
| Release date | 14 April 2020 (6 years ago) | 1 April 2026 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,450 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX: 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 18 (Octadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 18 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1.5 MB | no data |
| L2 cache | 12 MB | 30 MB |
| L3 cache | 192 MB (shared) | 30 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 74 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX 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 | 2 | no data |
| Socket | SP3 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 240 Watt | no data |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 4 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.763 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) (300 - 1800 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7F72 and Core Ultra 7 251HX.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.50 | 28.50 |
| Recency | 14 April 2020 | 1 April 2026 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 18 |
| Threads | 48 | 18 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 3 nm |
EPYC 7F72 has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, and 33% more physical cores and 167% more threads.
Ultra 7 251HX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD EPYC 7F72 and Intel Core Ultra 7 251HX.
Be aware that EPYC 7F72 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 251HX is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
