Home United States USA — IT Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Review: Much Better Value

Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Review: Much Better Value

59
0
SHARE

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K features 8 P-Cores and 12 E-Cores with improved clock speeds and power efficiency. Let’s see how it compares to AMD’s lineup.
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K can be considered the successor to the Core i7-14700K. It will be interesting to see how these two compare and, of course, how the 265K stacks up against AMD’s offerings.
The Core Ultra 7 265K features 8 P-Cores with 8 threads, as Hyper-Threading is no longer implemented. These P-Cores operate at a base frequency of 3.9 GHz and can boost up to 5.5 GHz, representing only a 2% frequency reduction compared to the 14700K.
In addition, there are 12 E-Cores with 12 threads, as SMT support is not included. The E-Cores have a base frequency of 3.3 GHz and can reach up to 4.6 GHz, which actually provides a 7% increase over the E-Core frequency on the 14700K.
The processor includes 30 MB of L3 cache and 36 MB of L2 cache. Each P-Core is allocated 3 MB of L2 cache, while the E-Cores receive 4 MB per cluster, with each cluster comprising four E-Cores. The base TDP is set at 125W, with a maximum turbo power of 250W, and Intel prices this at $395 per 1,000 units.
With Arrow Lake, Intel has moved away from the LGA1700 socket, switching to LGA1851. We covered more information about Intel’s new platform, socket, and testing information in our Core Ultra 9 285K review, so for more details about that check out that review.
Despite the increased pin count, the new socket maintains the same dimensions and cooler mounting hole spacing as LGA1700, ensuring continued compatibility with existing CPU coolers.
It’s also worth noting that all K-SKU models, which are the only models announced so far, support dual-channel DDR5-5600 UDIMM memory or DDR5-6400 CUDIMM memory. CUDIMM memory includes a small clock driver circuit directly on the module, allowing for more precise timings necessary for higher memory speeds.
All models provide 20 PCIe 5.0 lanes and 4 PCIe 4.0 lanes, along with a Direct Media Interface 4.0 with an 8-lane bus to the chipset. As expected, the K-suffix processors feature an unlocked multiplier and therefore can be overclocked.
Before we get into the benchmark data, here are the test specs and systems used. One thing to note is that we benchmarked the 285K with both DDR5-7200 and DDR5-8200 memory.
First, let’s examine how the 265K performs under load. For cooling, we’re using the new MSI MAG Coreliquid I360, provided in our review kit and specifically optimized for these new Arrow Lake CPUs. MSI designed a unique bracket that shifts the cold plate northward, allowing for a 3-degree reduction in temperature by better targeting the hot spot on these CPUs.
With the Coreliquid I360 installed, we loaded the 265K with Cinebench and observed an average clock frequency of 4.6 GHz on the E-Cores and 5.2 GHz on the P-Cores, all while remaining within the stock 250W power limit. The CPU peaked at a core temperature of 84°C, comfortably below the 105°C TjMAX.
Now, turning to Cinebench multi-core performance, we see the 265K reaching just shy of 2,200 points, making it 8% faster than the 14700K and 18% faster than the 9900X. This places its performance on par with the 7950X and 14900K in this test.
Single-core performance is also strong, with the P-Cores achieving 145 points – 4% higher than the 9900X and 14% faster than the 14700K.
Regarding power consumption, the 265K draws 218W, which is comparable to the power usage of the 12900K, 14600K, 7950X, and 9950X. As we just saw, its performance aligns closely with the 7950X, indicating a similar level of power efficiency in this workload.
The 265K is also 8% faster than the 14700K while achieving nearly 100W in power savings – an impressive 29% reduction. However, more efficient Ryzen processors, like the 7950X3D, deliver comparable performance to the 265K while consuming 33% less power.
Moving on to file compression performance, we find the 265K slightly slower than the 14700K, trailing by 6% when using identical DDR5-7200 memory. Performance was also comparable to that of the 9900X.
The 265K falls further behind the 14700K in decompression performance, partly due to its lack of SMT support.

Continue reading...