Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Review
When you purchase through links on our website, we may earn an affiliate commission.
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
At least better value than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.
3.75
Pros
- Better performance in production workloads.
- Increased efficiency and reduced power draw.
Cons
- Loss in gaming performance.
- Requires a new motherboard and RAM.
Don't feel like reading? Listen to this podcast featuring our detailed review of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K processor.
Intel’s Core Ultra 7 265K processor arrives as a promising mid-tier addition to the latest Arrow Lake lineup. Positioned between the high-end Core Ultra 9 285K and the more affordable Core Ultra 5 245K, this model aims to balance speed, efficiency, and multitasking capabilities for gamers and creatives alike. In our previous reviews, both the Core Ultra 9 285K and the entry-level Core Ultra 5 245K couldn’t meet our expectations, with neither model delivering the performance or value we’d hoped for, making them difficult to recommend. This is going to be our last of the three Arrow Lake CPU reviews (for now), so let’s see if this CPU is any different from the previous ones—and if it’s worth buying.
Specifications
Here are the on-paper specifications of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K:
| Specification | Details |
|---|---|
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S |
| Core Configuration | 8 Performance + 12 Efficiency Cores |
| Threads | 20 |
| Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
| P-Core Turbo Speed | Up to 5.5 GHz |
| E-Core Turbo Speed | Up to 4.6 GHz |
| Foundry | TSMC |
| Process Size | 3 nm |
| Socket | LGA-1851 |
| Transistors | 17,800 million |
| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-2 Graphics 64EU |
| Memory Support | DDR5 |
| PCIe Support | PCIe Gen 5 |
| Cache | 30MB L3 cache |
| AI Acceleration NPU | 13 TOPS |
| TDP | 125 W |
| tJMax | 105°C |
| Release Date | Oct 24th, 2024 |
| Launch Price | $394 |
The Core Ultra 7 265K has a higher base clock on its P-cores at 3.9 GHz, which can benefit sustained workloads by providing consistent performance. It boosts up to 5.5 GHz on its P-cores, while the i7-14700K reaches a slightly higher maximum turbo of 5.6 GHz. The E-cores in the 265K run at a maximum of 4.6 GHz, compared to 4.3 GHz on the 14700K. This faster E-core speed on the 265K enhances its multi-threaded efficiency, making it well-suited for applications that leverage both high-performance and efficiency cores.
Key Architectural Changes in Arrow Lake CPUs
Intel’s new Arrow Lake lineup introduces significant architectural changes that mark a departure from previous generations. Designed for enhanced efficiency and optimized power consumption, these changes impact both performance and compatibility. Let’s explore the key architectural updates that Intel has introduced with the Arrow Lake processors.
Removal of Hyper-Threading:
- Unlike previous generations, Intel has removed hyper-threading from the Arrow Lake series. Traditionally, hyper-threading allowed a single core to handle two threads, effectively doubling the number of logical processors. With Arrow Lake, Intel is focusing on raw core count and multi-core efficiency rather than relying on hyper-threading to boost multitasking performance.
- The result is a simpler core structure, where each core now handles a single thread. This change is intended to enhance thermal management and simplify core scheduling, particularly beneficial in hybrid architectures where P-cores and E-cores have different workloads.
Manufacturing Process:
- Arrow Lake processors are built on Intel’s new 3nm process node (manufactured by TSMC), allowing for more efficient power usage compared to previous Intel nodes.
- The 3nm process improves overall power efficiency, which translates to lower power draw and better thermal performance.
New LGA 1851 Socket:
- Arrow Lake CPUs use a new LGA 1851 socket, which requires the latest Z890 series motherboards.
- Intel’s adoption of the LGA 1851 socket is meant to improve CPU cooling and performance.
DDR5-Only Memory Support:
- Intel has moved entirely to DDR5 memory with the Arrow Lake series, marking the end of DDR4 compatibility for these processors. These processors support DDR5 memory at speeds of up to 6400 MT/s, enhancing data transfer rates and improving memory-intensive applications.
- This shift enables Arrow Lake CPUs to take advantage of DDR5’s higher bandwidth, reduced latency, and greater efficiency, all of which are crucial for gaming and multitasking performance.
Enhanced Integrated Graphics:
- Intel has introduced Arc Xe2 integrated graphics in Arrow Lake CPUs, significantly enhancing the graphics capabilities. With 64 execution units, the integrated GPU can handle casual gaming and media tasks without a dedicated graphics card.
- While the Arc Xe2 graphics represent a leap forward for Intel, still they remain behind AMD’s Ryzen 8000G series processors in terms of gaming performance.
Integrated NPU for AI Acceleration:
- The Arrow Lake CPUs incorporate a dedicated Neural Processing Unit (NPU), a first for Intel’s desktop CPUs. This NPU is designed to handle AI-specific tasks, offloading them from the CPU and GPU, which improves overall system efficiency and responsiveness.
- With the NPU, these CPUs can perform AI-driven tasks—such as voice recognition, image processing, and machine learning—more efficiently.
Test System Specs
For Intel Core Ultra 200S
Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus Z890 Hero
RAM: G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-7200 (except where other RAM is mentioned)
For Intel 13th and 14th Gen
Motherboard: MSI MPG Z790 Carbon Wifi
RAM: G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-7200
For AMD Ryzen 7000 Series
Motherboard: Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
RAM: G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo DDR5-6000
For AMD Ryzen 5000 Series
Motherboard: MSI MPG X570S Carbon MAX WiFi
RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series DDR4-3600
All Systems
Graphic Card: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 4090 OC Edition
Gaming Performance
All games were tested at 1080p resolution. Testing at this resolution allows the CPU’s performance to be accurately assessed without the GPU becoming a limiting factor. During testing, we noticed performance inconsistencies when using Windows 11 version 24H2; the Intel Core Ultra 200S series processors performed noticeably better on version 23H2. Consequently, we tested these (Intel Core Ultra 200S series and Intel’s 13th and 14th generation processors) on Windows 11 version 23H2, while other CPUs were benchmarked on version 24H2.
You can take your time to examine the detailed benchmarks provided above, but here’s a quick summary: on average, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is 10% slower than the i7-14700K, 22.2% slower than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, and 6% slower than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. It’s absolutely staggering that despite a 45% increase in price from the 265K to the 285K, the performance gain is a mere 6%. This discrepancy highlights the limited value proposition of the 285K and raises questions about the competitive positioning of the 265K as well.
Single-Core and Multi-Core Performance
Let’s move on to see how this CPU performs in single-core and multi-core tasks. This section will reveal whether the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K can hold its ground against similarly priced competitors in productivity, content creation, and other intensive applications.
In Cinebench 2024 multi-core performance, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K demonstrates an 8% improvement over the i7-14700K and an 8.6% boost in single-core performance. In applications like Blender, Corona 10, and Adobe Photoshop, the 265K averages a 5% performance gain over the 14700K. However, in applications, such as Adobe Premiere Pro, 7-Zip compression, and decompression, the 265K falls short, showing an 11% performance loss on average compared to the i7-14700K.
Despite these improvements, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K still trails significantly behind AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 9950X in production workloads.
Power Consumption and Efficiency
Intel’s main focus with the Core Ultra 200 series has been on efficiency and reducing power draw. So, let’s see how the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K fares in terms of power consumption and efficiency—and whether these improvements make a meaningful impact in real-world use.
The Core Ultra 7 265K does indeed consume less power and is more efficient than its previous-generation counterpart, but it still lags behind AMD processors, which remain significantly more efficient, draw noticeably less power, and also give better performance. Most importantly, the reduction in power draw and increased efficiency alone without any significant improvements in performance simply don’t justify the cost of upgrading to this CPU.
Final Verdict
As we mentioned in our review of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, the reduced power draw and increased efficiency will not benefit you at all unless you’re playing games like Cyberpunk 2077 and The Last of Us literally as a full-time job for the next 3-5 years. And honestly, if you’re willing to invest heavily in a CPU, efficiency won’t be a concern to you if performance is top-notch.
Intel has successfully achieved greater efficiency and reduced power draw with the Core Ultra 265K, but this has come at the cost of significant gaming performance loss and minimal gains in productivity tasks.
If you’re already using an i7-14700K, there’s no compelling reason to upgrade to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K. Making the switch would require not only a new CPU but also a compatible motherboard and, likely, new DDR5 RAM—adding up to a hefty investment which is simply not worth it for this CPU.
For those building a new PC and aiming for the best gaming performance, it’s worth waiting for AMD’s upcoming Ryzen 7 9800X3D. If it lives up to expectations, it may set a new standard for gaming. Otherwise, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is likely to see a price drop with the release of its successor, making it an excellent choice for gaming-focused builds. For users prioritizing productivity, the Ryzen 9 9950X offers unmatched performance in production workloads, while the Ryzen 9 7950X is a strong alternative for those on a tighter budget. And if you’re seeking a CPU that excels in both gaming and production, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is a great option that balances performance across both domains.
Right now, it’s best to avoid the Intel Core Ultra 200 series CPUs until their prices come down significantly—though that’s unlikely anytime soon.
Recommended Products:
AMD RYZEN 7 7800X3D AMD RYZEN 9 7950X AMD RYZEN 9 9950X AMD RYZEN 9 7950X3D
Related Articles: