Intel Core Ultra 7 265K review: efficiency just isn’t enough
Intel's Core Ultra 7 265K CPU tested
WePC is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Prices subject to change. Learn more
Intel’s 15th generation CPU lineup is here, and with it comes the latest rebrand to the Core Ultra 200 series. The 265K is Intel’s successor to the i7 14700K, which should be a mashup between the 245K and the 285K. But with the Core Ultra series being met with very unfavorable opinions, will it be worth the price tag?
The Core Ultra 7 265K ships with 20 cores and 20 total threads. The keen-eyed among you will have spotted that the equal numbers indicate that SMT or hyperthreading has been ditched for the Core Ultra series in favour of better efficiency. Speaking of efficiency, it is up massively compared to Raptor Lake R, but at what cost?
If you want to know what we think of the other CPUs in the series, you can check out our 285K and 245K reviews – to give you a small spoiler, we weren’t convinced.
- Core configuration: 20 (8+12)
- Threads: 20
- P-Core Speed: 5.4 GHz (boost) 3.9 GHz (base)
- E-Core Speed: 4.6 GHz (boost) 3.3 GHz (base)
- DDR5 support: DDR5 @ 6400 MT/s
- TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme): 125W / 250W / 250W / 250W
The Core Ultra 7 265K showcases impressive efficiency with its 20 cores and 20 threads, leveraging a 3 nm manufacturing process to enhance power usage. While it delivers solid performance in multi-core tasks, it falls behind in gaming compared to competitors like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Priced at $404, it’s a decent option for productivity-focused users, but its gaming capabilities leave something to be desired, making it less appealing for gamers seeking top performance.
- Strong multi-core performance
- Competitively priced
- Falls short in gaming workloads
- Not as efficient as the 285K
- LGA 1851 motherboard required
Specifications and comparison
To highlight the main changes Intel has made to the Core Ultra 7 265K, we’ll be comparing its specifications to its predecessor, the i7 14700K. We’ve done this to see how the CPU has changed when comparing it to last generation’s version. It also helps us estimate how the CPU will perform in certain testing areas, before we actually put it through real-world scenarios. Learning to read specifications can greatly help assess a CPU use case.
| Component | Core Ultra 265K | 14700K |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 20 | 20 |
| Threads | 20 | 28 |
| Hybrid architecture | P-core: 8 E-core: 12 | P-core: 8 E-core: 12 |
| Base frequency | P-core: 3.9 GHz E-core: 3.3 GHz | P-core: 3.4 GHz E-core: 2.5 GHz |
| Boost frequency | P-core: 5.4 GHz E-core: 4.6 GHz | P-core: 5.6 GHz E-core: 4.3 GHz |
| Boost 3.0 | 5.5 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Turbo clock | up to 5.5 GHz | up to 5.6 GHz |
| Memory speed | 6400 MT/s | 5600 MT/s |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 (Gen 5) | 16 (Gen 5) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 33 MB (shared) |
| TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (extreme) | 125W / 250W / 250W / 250W | 125W / 253W / 253W / Unlimited |
| Process size | 3 nm | 10 nm |
| Socket | LGA 1815 (compatible with Z980) | LGA 1700 (compatible with Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610) |
We can observe a few differences between the 265K and the 14700K, the biggest of which is the Core Ultra 7’s lack of hyperthreading. Intel has opted to ditch hyperthreading, most likely to preserve efficiency, but this may be Intel’s undoing. The other notable change is the huge drop in the manufacturing process; Intel has managed to drop from their 10 nm process to TSMC’s 3 nm process. This is why Intel can squeeze so much efficiency out of these Skymont E-cores (up to 35% more efficiency, claims Intel).
Sadly, it seems almost everything has been limited on the 265K. Base core speeds are up, but most boost speeds can’t keep up with the 14700K. Again, this is likely an effort to increase the chip’s efficiency. The PL2 has also been limited to 250W rather than unlimited – but this can be disabled in the BIOS.
That said, let’s test this chip and hope it doesn’t suffer the same issues as the other two in the series.
Design and Gallery
The design hasn’t changed much physically over the previous generation, but a lot has changed internally. The main point is the hyperthreading we already touched upon. The base of the CPU now has more pins to accommodate the new LGA 1851 socket that comes on compatible motherboards (remember, you cannot use this CPU on previous-gen motherboards).
265K and box contents
265K Infront of box contact pads
265K next to box
265K in front of box ihs
265K and box on table
265K on table
265K on table up close
Performance
Before we discuss the results of our testing, it’s important to outline all of the specifications of our test rig. This will help us understand how and why the hardware managed to benchmark as it did. The choice of GPU matters less for synthetic performance, but it’s important for gaming. To keep things fair, we try to keep all parts as similar as possible, even across generations. We can compare the hardware and judge which components are better for certain workloads. If you want to know more, you can check out our how we test CPUs page.
| Component | WePC test rig |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core Ultra 285K |
| Cooler | Corsair H150i Elite LCD |
| Motherboard | ASUS Maximus Extreme Z890 |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 @6800 MHz |
| GPU | MSI RTX 4070 Ti |
| PSU | ASUS Thor Platinum II 1000W |
| Case | Cooler Master Masterframe |
As you can see, we spare no expense when testing the latest hardware because we want the component we’re testing to be the core focus of the benchmark. With that in mind, here’s how the 265K performed in our gaming benchmarks.
Graphs
We created graphs to display all of the important benchmarking information, making it easier to understand.
265K average FPS
265K average PPT
265K synth multi core
265K synth single core
Gaming performance
We put the Core Ultra 265K through a variety of game benchmarks to really test its range. All games were set to 1080p at low settings to keep the focus squarely on CPU performance, avoiding any GPU bottlenecks.
The games we chose spanned the spectrum, from CPU-intensive titles to less demanding ones, giving us a comprehensive look at how the 265K handles different loads. Here’s the lineup, benchmarked in sequence:
| Metric | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal | Horizon FW | Frost punk 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (FPS) | AVG: 212.8 99%: 137.9 | AVG: 212.8 99%: 137.9 | AVG: 495.7 99%: 347.8 | AVG: 192.2 99%: 139.3 | AVG: 85.7 99%: 65.3 |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 49 | 46 | 51 | 49 | 47 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 57 | 51 | 55 | 52 | 51 |
| Average PPT (W) | 96.66W | 61.88W | 119.85W | 102.55W | 82.32W |
The Core Ultra 265K’s gaming performance, while decent, wasn’t particularly impressive in these tests. Although it maintained smooth frame rates across titles like CS2 and Days Gone at around 212.8 FPS, its gaming performance didn’t stand out.
Even with Doom Eternal hitting high averages at 495.7 FPS, the results didn’t show the leap forward some might expect from a new-gen CPU. With temperatures staying within reasonable limits and power draw under control, it’s clear that the 265K is more about balanced efficiency than groundbreaking gaming performance.
When compared against the 7800X3D (a CPU similarly priced when not being scalped), the gaming performance woes become much more apparent.
| CPU | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra 7 265K | AVG: 212.8 99%: 137.9 | AVG: 212.8 99%: 137.9 | AVG: 495.7 99%: 347.8 |
| Ryzen 7 7800X3D | AVG: 348.4 99%: 151.62 | AVG: 258.4 99%: 152.7 | AVG: 526.4 99%: 398.1 |
In titles like CS2 and Doom Eternal, the 7800X3D achieves higher average and 99th percentile frame rates, with CS2 reaching an average of 348.4 FPS versus the 265K’s 309.7 FPS. Doom Eternal shows a similar trend, with the 7800X3D averaging 526.4 FPS, significantly outpacing the 265K’s 495.7 FPS. Additionally, power efficiency leans in the 7800X3D’s favour, especially in more demanding titles.
The 7800X3D runs cooler under load as well, which could be a factor for users focused on thermals and efficiency in extended gaming sessions. While the 265K offers respectable numbers, the 7800X3D’s performance edge in these benchmarks makes it a more attractive choice for gamers seeking maximum FPS in a similar price bracket.
Synthetic performance
We ran the 265K through popular benchmarking software that has an expansive library of results for every processor; this means you can compare results with your CPU to see how it stacks up.
| Metric | CPU Z | Cinebench R23 | Geekbench | Blender render |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (points) | Single 866.8 Multi 15,387 | Single 2.037 Multi 33,429 | Single 2,985 Multi 21,699 | Monster: 213.15 Junkshop: 143.42 Classroom: 105.42 |
| AVG temp (package) °C | 55 | Single: 48 Multi: 63 | 44 | 62 |
| Max temp (package) °C | 65 | Single: 54 Multi: 69 | 60 | 70 |
| Average PPT (W) | 105.07W | Single: 52.52W Multi: 162.63W | 48.35W | 162.08W |
When pitting the Core Ultra 265K against the Ryzen 7 9700X in synthetic benchmarks, it becomes clear where each CPU stands. The 265K pulls ahead in multi-core tasks, but its single-core performance leaves a bit to be desired, especially when compared to the 9700X. While the 265K scores a solid 866.8 in CPU-Z single-core, the Ryzen 7 9700X actually edges it out in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 2,207 versus the 265K’s 2,037. In Geekbench single-core, the 9700X also leads with 3,376, outpacing the 265K’s 2,985.
However, the 265K shows its advantage in multi-core performance. It scores 15,387 in CPU-Z multi-core and 33,429 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, significantly outperforming the 9700X’s 8,199 and 20,184 in the same tests. In Geekbench, the 265K again leads with 21,699 in multi-core compared to the 9700X’s 17,290, highlighting its potential for multi-threaded tasks and intensive workloads.
The Core Ultra 265K is a strong choice for users focused on multi-core performance, making it a great fit for rendering, encoding, and other parallelized applications. But if you’re after single-core speed for tasks like gaming or applications that don’t fully utilize multiple threads, the 9700X might be the better value in this price bracket.
It’s important to remember that the 9700X’s results were pre-105W TDP patch, so the CPU is only running at 65W. The 265K’s higher power consumption and heat under heavy loads also make it more of a commitment for those prioritizing efficiency. Still, though, Intel’s generational improvements in efficiency are nothing short of amazing.
Temperature and efficiency
| CPU | Cinebench R32 (multi) | CS2 | Days Gone | Doom Eternal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Ultra 265K | Score: 33,429 Max temp: 69°C Max PPT: 162.63W | AVG: 309.7 Max temp: 49°C Max PPT: 86.59W | AVG: 212.8 Max temp: 57°C Max PPT: 96.66W | AVG: 495.7 Max temp: 55°C Max PPT: 119.85W |
| Core Ultra 285K | Score: 42,399 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 160.06W | AVG: 313.8 Max temp: 48°C Max PPT: 48.5W | AVG: 236.952 Max temp: 51°C Max PPT: 61.88W | AVG: 499.82 Max temp: 54°C Max PPT: 108.04W |
| Ryzen 9 9950X | Score: 40,166 Max temp: 64°C Max PPT: 167.67W | AVG: 323.7 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 113.55W | AVG: 237.4 Max temp: 73°C Max PPT: 108.33W | AVG: 507.658 Max temp: 62°C Max PPT: 155.96W |
We examined the power efficiency of the Core Ultra 265K and pitted it against other top-performing CPUs. The 265K operates with a maximum temperature of 69°C and a PPT of 162.63W, showing balanced performance but relatively high thermals. The 285K, with its higher performance capabilities, reaches 73°C and a PPT of 160.06W, indicating that while it can deliver power and is marketed towards efficiency, you’ll need a good cooler to keep throttling at bay in some scenarios.
In contrast, the Ryzen 9 9950X shows impressive thermal efficiency, peaking at a lower temperature of 64°C with a PPT of 167.67W. This efficient thermal profile not only suggests effective heat dissipation but also points to the 9950X’s ability to maintain performance under pressure, making it a strong choice for users concerned about long-term reliability during intensive tasks.
While the 265K and 285K are marketed towards efficiency, they still can’t beat AMD. This makes sense since AMD has been the top performer in efficiency for a long time now, but it’s certainly an improvement on the older generations of Intel CPUs.
Price
The Core Ultra 9 265K enters the scene at a competitive $404, positioning itself attractively in a price bracket where it faces off against high-performing contenders. Compared to the flagship Core Ultra 285K at $589, the 265K retains much of the flagship’s efficiency prowess at a more accessible price. This positions it well, especially if productivity and multi-threading are top priorities. However, for those leaning toward AMD, the Ryzen 9 9700X at $324 and the Ryzen 9 7900X at $398 are also strong competitors, especially in gaming.
In Intel’s lineup, the Core i7-14700K, at $347, offers similar performance but falls short in multi-core workloads due to its core configuration. The 265K, with its blend of power efficiency and solid clock speeds, handles most gaming tasks and multi-threaded workflows well – proving it’s capable of punching above its weight. However, moving to the 15th generation requires upgrading Intel’s new LGA 1851 motherboard.
With the 265K, Intel has presented a balanced choice in the mid-range. It performs well across various multi-core tasks; it’s just a shame that it’s so bad for gaming.
Is the 265K worth it?
While the 265K comes with 20 cores and 20 threads (having ditched hyperthreading for improved efficiency), it doesn’t significantly outperform its rivals, especially in gaming. Yes, it boasts impressive efficiency improvements over the previous generation, but at what cost?
In specifications, the 265K may have some advantages – like its manufacturing process shrinking from 10 nm to 3 nm. This transition allows for better efficiency, with Intel claiming up to 35% more efficiency. However, that doesn’t necessarily translate to performance. In gaming benchmarks, it struggles to keep up with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which offers higher average and 99th percentile FPS across several titles.
Despite its decent performance in synthetic benchmarks, where it shines in multi-core tasks, its single-core performance is lacklustre compared to AMD’s offerings, especially for gaming enthusiasts. While it hits competitive pricing at $404, its main rivals, the Ryzen 9 9700X at $324 and the Ryzen 9 7900X at $398 – deliver superior value in gaming.
Ultimately, the Core Ultra 265K is a solid CPU for multi-threaded tasks. Still, if gaming is a priority, you might find better options elsewhere, especially given the unfavourable opinions surrounding Intel’s Core Ultra series. It’s a balanced choice, but it lacks the punch and performance edge you might expect in its price range.
Final Word
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
