Core Ultra 7 265K Vs Core i7 14700K: What We Think

See full bio

Abde Manaf

At Tech4Gamers, I began as a comparison writer, analyzing GPU and CPU performance. Now, I focus on writing reviews and contributing to the best-ofs section, sharing personal insights after hands-on testing.

See full bio

Pros And Cons

Comparison Table

Architectural Differences

1. Core Count: The Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores (8 P-cores and 12 E-cores) and 20 threads, whereas the Core i7 14700K has 20 cores (8 P-cores and 12 E-cores) and 28 threads.
2. Clock Speed: The 265K has a base frequency of 3.9GHz and a boost of up to 5.4GHz, different from the 14700 K’s 3.4GHz base and 5.6GHz boost.
3. Cache: The i7 has 33 megabytes of L3 cache, a hair larger than the 30 megabytes of L3 cache that the Core Ultra 7 has.
4. TDP: The TDPs of both chips are virtually identical. Both have a PL1 TDP of 125 watts, while the 14700K has a PL2 TDP of 253 watts instead of the 250 watts of the 265K.
5. Process Node: The Core Ultra 7 265K has a 3nm manufacturing process, which is miles better than the ancient 10nm manufacturing process of the 14700K.

Intel has forgone its brand recognition with the Core i chips in favor of a fresh name and a fresh start to its new state: the Core Ultra Chips. Let us see how they compare against one another in comparing the Core Ultra 7 265K vs Core i7 14700k!

Gaming Benchmarks

The best way to find the differences between the Core Ultra 7 265K vs Core i7 14700k is to see how they compare against each other regarding gaming performance. To do this evaluation, we have constructed a test bench, the specs of which you can read below:

Test Bench

• OS – Windows 11 
• CPU Cooler – Enermax LiqMaxFlo 360mm
• Graphics Card – GIGABYTE RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G
• SSD – XPG Gammix S50 Lite
• Power Supply – be quiet! Dark Power Pro 13 1300W
• Mobo (Core Ultra 7) – MSI MPG Z890 Edge Ti WiFi
• Mobo (Core i7) – MSI MEG Z790 ACE MAX Motherboard

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• The first game of our testing performed better on the older chip. The 14700K had an average of 163 FPS, which was an 11.64% difference compared to the 146 FPS of the 265K.
• The 14700K was at a very slight disadvantage when it came to the 1% lows of this game, where it had lows of 127 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 had lows of around 128 FPS, constituting a 0.79% difference.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• The 265K took the lead in The Last Of Us, with an average of 193 FPS, it was around 2.12% faster than the 186 FPS average of the Core i7 14700K, a relatively small difference.
• The 1% lows were weirdly in favor of the i7 processor, with a minimum of 138 FPS, which was 1.47% higher than the 136 FPS of the Core Ultra processor.

Cyberpunk 2077

• There was a 10% difference in Cyberpunk 2077, where the 14700K had an average framerate of 164 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 had an average framerate closer to around 148 FPS.
• The i7 kept its lead in the 1% lows, with a minimum framerate of around 126 FPS, while the Core Ultra 7 hovered around 113 FPS in the challenging scenes.

Hogwarts Legacy

• We saw a small 1.68% advantage in Hogwarts Legacy, where the 14700K had an average of 121 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K had an average of 119 FPS.
• Both processors had the same numbers in the 1% lows, with both getting down to around 83 FPS in the hard-to-render scenes in our benchmarks.

Remnant 2

• Remnant 2 saw a slight advantage over the Core Ultra 7, with an average framerate of 117 FPS, whereas the Core i7 14700K had an average of 1 frame lower at about 116 FPS.
• The 265K took the cake regarding the 1% lows, with minimums of around 103 FPS, whereas the 14700K hung around minimums of 97 FPS in our testing.

Homeworld 3

• The 14700K won by a small margin in Homeworld 3, with an average framerate of 87 FPS, which was 3.57% higher than the 84 FPS of the 265K.
• The minimums miraculously shared the same difference as the averages. The 14700K had lows of 29 FPS, whereas the 265K had a minimum framerate of around 28 FPS in our testing.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• This test saw the biggest difference in our benchmarks, with the 14700K hovering around an average of 147 FPS, which was about 21.5% higher than the 121 FPS average with the 265K.
• The minimum framerates had an even bigger difference. The 14700K had lows of around 109 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K stuck closer to 73 FPS, a difference of around 49%.

Hitman 3

• Finally, the last test of our benchmarks was Hitman 3, where the 14700K had an average framerate of 271 FPS, which was around 5.86% higher than the 256 FPS that came out of the Core Ultra 7.
• The minimums were close to each other, with the i7 getting lows of around 234 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K had minimums closer to 232 FPS.

Productivity Benchmarks

Now that we’ve gone through the gaming benchmarks for these chips let us take a dive into the productivity performance of the Core Ultra 7 265K vs Core i7 14700K. We will use the same test bench we used for the gaming benchmarks to check these.

Cinebench R24

• The Core i7 14700K had a lower single-core score of 127 points, around 14% behind the 145 points the Core Ultra 7 265K produced.
• The multi-core score was more of the same. The 14700K scored 1991 points, which was about 9% behind the Core Ultra 7 265K, which had 2165 points.

7-Zip

• The 14700K had an advantage of around 3.3% in our 7-Zip compression test, which amassed 188 points, while the Core Ultra 7 265K scored around 182 points.
• The decompression performance was also higher on the i7 with a score of 201 points, which was around 14% higher than the 176 points that the Core Ultra 7 produced.

Photoshop

• The i7 also took the lead in our final productivity benchmark, with a lead of around 7.58%. In conjunction with the one we saw with the 7-Zip tests, this difference shows that the i7 is better in real-world performance.
• The i7 14700K got around 9947 points in our testing, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K hovered closer to 9246 points.

Overall Performance

Average Framerate

The average framerates in our tests were unremarkable when comparing these two chips. Both punched back when one succeeded in a benchmark, but overall, the 14700K performed about 6.25% higher on average.

1% Lows

The minimum framerates were more or less the same for the Core Ultra 7 265K vs Core i7 14700k. The Core Ultra 7 was ahead in some tests, but just by a hair. On average, the 14700K was about 5.25% ahead of its rival.

Productivity Benchmarks

The 265K won regarding the synthetic benchmarks in Cinebench R24 but failed at everything else. The 14700K was not trailing ahead by a huge margin, but it did have the advantage in our 7-Zip and Pudget Systems Photoshop tests.

Power Consumption

Thanks to its much more efficient process nodes, the 265K was more power efficient than the Core i7 14700K. This 46% lowering of power consumption, in conjunction with the similar performance in our benchmarks, makes the 265K much more power efficient than the 14700K.

Temperatures

In our testing, there was an unremarkable 3% difference in temperature between the two chips. The 14700K was a bit hotter, though neither processor reached a temperature where it was dangerous to operate. 

Price And Value

Our research showed that the 14700K has degraded in price since its launch, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K has not because of its recent launch date. As of late November 2024, the Core Ultra 7 265K is about $45 more expensive than the Core i7 14700K.

What We Recommend

Core Ultra 7 265K: This processor is an adequate chip, though its lower performance than its last-gen counterpart sticks out like a sore thumb in an industry where AMD is shooting past Intel. However, it is a good platform to invest in, as Intel will keep it alive for atleast a few years.

Core i7 14700K: This chip has no upgrade path (besides getting the core i9 14900K and its KS variant) and has high power demands. It is better than the Core Ultra 7 265K in all aspects, including price, performance, and productivity.

We believe the Core Ultra 7 265K and the Core i7 14700K are very similar chips, with a few downgrades with each. Your choice should depend on your chosen platform and whether the extra power draw of the 14700K concerns you.

Please leave this field empty

Gear Up For Latest News

Get exclusive gaming & tech news before it drops. Sign up today!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Abde Manaf

[Comparisons Expert]

Abdemanaf is a skilled creative writer who has been honing his craft since 2011. While initially working in different fields, he found a passion for technology and has been exploring the tech world since early 2015. Over the years, he has developed an in-depth knowledge of the latest tech trends and product offerings by various companies.

Abdemanaf’s writing reflects his analytical mindset and ability to think critically. He has a knack for breaking down complex technical information into easily digestible pieces, making his articles engaging and accessible to readers from all backgrounds. In February 2022, he joined Tech4Gamers as a blog and product comparison writer, where he has been able to hone his skills further.

As a writer, Abdemanaf is dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest technological advancements and trends, enabling him to provide readers with the most relevant and accurate information. He is always eager to learn more and is constantly seeking new challenges to improve his skills.

Get In Touch: manaf@tech4gamers.com