Core Ultra 7 265K Vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Which One Is Better?

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 and 20 threads made from 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores, while the 7800X3D only uses 8 cores and 16 threads.
2. Clock Speed: The 265K’s base clock speed is 3.9GHz, and it boosts up to 5.4GHz. However, the Ryzen has a base clock of 4.2GHz and a boost of up to 5GHz.
3. Cache: The 265K comes packed with 30MB of L3 cache, whereas the 7800X3D goes much further by bundling in 96MB of L3 cache with its design.
4. Process Node: Intel’s 265K uses very advanced 3nm processing nodes for its design, whereas the Ryzen 7 7800X3D uses 5nm.
5. TDP: The 265 K’s PL1 TDP is 125 watts, which is a hair higher than the 120 watts that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D requires.

Intel isn’t the only chip maker that has drastically changed its approach with its desktops over the past few years. AMD has also been shifting its strategy to the X3D line of chips. In this comparison of the Core Ultra 7 265K vs Ryzen 7 7800X3D, let us see how Intel’s innovation stands against AMD’s!

Gaming Benchmarks – 1080p

Like a lot of consumers, gaming is where the brunt of our concern lies with new CPU releases. To check the performance of these chips against one another, we have devised 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 (AMD) – ASRock X870E Taichi Lite
• Mobo (Intel) – MSI MPG Z890 Edge Ti WiFi Review

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

• In the first game of our testing, we saw a 41% improvement with the 7800X3D, which played this game at an average of 206 FPS, while the Intel processor was struggling to get 146 FPS.
• The minimum framerates were 44% higher on the Ryzen chip, with a framerate of 185 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K went down to around 128 FPS.

The Last Of Us Part 1

• The difference died down to 2.07% in The Last Of Us Part 1, where the Ryzen had an average of 197 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra got around 193 FPS.
• The minimums were the same on both the chips at around 136 FPS.

Cyberpunk 2077

• Testing Cyberpunk at 1080p got an average of 202 FPS on the 7800X3D, which was about 36% higher than the 148 FPS that the Core Ultra 7 265K could manage.
• The 1% lows were around 143 FPS on the 7800X3D, about 26% greater than the 113 FPS we saw with the Intel chip.

Hogwarts Legacy

• Playing this game yielded around 141 FPS on the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, about 18% higher than the 119 FPS the Core Ultra 7 265K had.
• The Ryzen 7 7800X3D’s minimum framerate was about 103 FPS, which was about 25% higher than the Core Ultra 7 265K’s 83 FPS.

Remnant 2

• This game showed a difference of around 18%, favoring the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which had a framerate of 138 FPS, while the Core Ultra 7 265K had a framerate of around 117 FPS.
• Remnant 2 had a difference of 16% when it came to the 1% lows, with the X3D chip getting down to a framerate of 120 FPS, whereas the 265K hovered closer to a minimum of 103 FPS.

Homeworld 3

• There was a huge difference in perceiving smoothness in Homeworld 3, where the Ryzen 7 7800X3D had an average framerate of around 117 FPS, about 40% higher than the Core Ultra’s 84 FPS.
• Minimums were a world apart, with the Ryzen 7’s lows of 52 FPS overshining Intel’s meagre 28 FPS 1% lows by around 85%.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

• The 7800X3D had a framerate of around 178 FPS on average in A Plague Tale: Requiem, which was around 47% higher than the 121 FPS of the Core Ultra 7 265K.
• The minimum framerates were about 74% apart, with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D going down to around 127 FPS, while the Core Ultra 7 265K hovered closer to 73 FPS.

Hitman 3

• Finally, Hitman 3 ran only 4.7% better on the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, with an average framerate of around 268 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K had a framerate of around 256 FPS.
• 1% lows were only 2.6% apart in our testing, where the Ryzen 7 7800X3D hovered closer to 238 FPS, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K stuck closer to 232 FPS on average.

Productivity Benchmarks

People use their computers for so much more than just gaming, and we strive to emulate that use using our productivity benchmarks. The following tests have been conducted using the test bench mentioned with the gaming benchmarks.

Cinebench R24

• The Core Ultra 7 265K was ahead by around 21% in the single-core portion of this test, with a score of 145 points instead of the 120 points of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
• There was a huge 94% difference in the multi-core section, where the Ryzen 7 7800X3D had a score of 1116 points, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K scored 2165 points.

7-Zip 

• The compression portion of this test ran about 46% better on the Core Ultra processor, with a score of about 182 points, whereas the Ryzen had a score of around 124 points.
• The decompression test was also much better on the Core Ultra 7, which had a score of 176 points, 31% higher than the 134 points that the Ryzen mustered.

Photoshop

• Lastly, the tables were flipped when we tested Photoshop using the Pudget systems benchmark. It ran about 19% better on the Ryzen chip.
• The Ryzen 7 7800X3D had a score of 10984 points, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K had a score of around 9246 points.

Overall Gaming Performance

Average Framerate

We saw an average 22% difference in performance with the gaming tests. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D consistently came out ahead of the Core Ultra 7 265K in all of our games, with some having a larger margin than others. Overall, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a much more capable chip for gaming than its rival.

1% Lows

The difference between these two processors in terms of the 1% lows was also around 23%, with the 7800X3D being in the clear lead. Some games saw huge improvements on the Ryzen, like Homeworld 3, which was a slog to run on the Intel chip.

Productivity

The Ryzen 7 7800X3D got its head served on a platter in our productivity section, at least with the compute-heavy tests. The Core Ultra’s multicore performance was much higher than the Ryzen. However, the 7800X3D did succeed in performing better in Photoshop.

Power Consumption

The Ryzen took a massive lead in power consumption. It consumed around 42% less power than the Core Ultra 7 265K. Though the Core Ultra chips have made huge improvements in power efficiency, they are no where near as efficient as the X3D chips.

Temperatures

Temperatures were a non-issue on either chip. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D was a bit warmer than the Core Ultra 7 265K, but not by a margin where it would be concerning for either. We saw a small difference of around 3% with the Ryzen being a hair hotter.

Price And Value

The price of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the Core Ultra 7 265K is about the same as of late November 2024. There is a small $10 difference in price, with the 7800X3D being a bit more pricey, but it is negligible considering its MSRP.

What We Recommend

Ryzen 7 7800X3D: This processor was excellent in all the facets we tested it in, except for productivity performance. Gaming, power consumption, and pricing are excellent on this chip, and the casual user prioritizes these attributes.

Core Ultra 7 265K: This chip’s performance in our gaming tests was disappointing compared to the faster 7800X3D chip. However, this processor’s performance is good for multi-core productivity workloads.

After all this discussion, we recommend the Ryzen 7 7800X3D to people who want to get the most performance possible for gaming, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265K is more suitable for people with heavy multi-threaded processing workloads.

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