Intel Core Ultra 7 265K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 285K, 245K, 7800X3D, 7900X, & More

Gamers Nexus

335,624 views • 11 months ago

Video Summary

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K processor, part of the Arrow Lake series, is reviewed focusing on efficiency, gaming, and production benchmarks. Priced at $44, it sits between its higher-end and lower-end counterparts. The review highlights that while the 265K shows improvements over its 14th generation predecessors, it is consistently outperformed by AMD's offerings, particularly in gaming and efficiency metrics, where AMD holds a significant lead.

In terms of production workloads, the 265K demonstrates better performance than some of its gaming-focused competitors, but still falls short of many AMD alternatives. The new platform requires a new motherboard, and while power consumption is reduced compared to older Intel generations, it doesn't match AMD's efficiency. The overall sentiment suggests that while the 265K has its merits, especially compared to previous Intel generations in certain production tasks, it struggles to justify its price point against a strong field of competitors.

The review concludes that there's no clear, sweeping reason to purchase this Intel processor, with AMD's options, like the 7800 X3D and 5700 X3D, often presenting better value, especially for gaming. The current Intel offerings face external issues and a lack of clear product positioning, making them difficult to recommend without specific use-case justifications.

Short Highlights

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is priced at $44 and reviewed for efficiency, gaming, and production.
In efficiency tests, the 265K is consistently outperformed by AMD processors.
Gaming benchmarks show AMD CPUs, like the 7800 X3D and 5700 X3D, offering better performance and value.
Production workloads see some improvement over older Intel generations, but AMD remains competitive.
The overall conclusion is that there's no clear, sweeping reason to recommend the 265K due to strong competition and external issues.

Key Details

Core Ultra 7 265K Introduction and Pricing [00:01]

The review focuses on the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K processor, an Arrow Lake series CPU with 20 cores (8P + 12E).
The naming convention is noted as clear and unlikely to cause issues.
This review is shorter, focusing on charts, with a full in-depth review available elsewhere.
The 265K is priced at $44, positioning it between the $630 285K and the $320-$330 245K.
The 245K is considered less logical due to its gaming focus over workstation applications, while the 285K has some workstation potential. The 265K theoretically balances these.

The 265k theoretically balances between them but that's what we're going to find out today in the last of the three for now, AOL Lake reviews.

Pricing and Competition [01:51]

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is currently priced at $44.
This price point is compared to AMD CPUs: 7900X ($400), 7900 non-X (~$370), 9700X ($330), and 9900X ($430).
AMD's 7800 X3D is 19% more expensive at $480, making it less viable for production but better for gaming.
The 265K might make sense for users splitting their time between heavy work applications and gaming, provided it competes with Intel's 14700K ($350) and 13700K ($290).
AMD's announced 9800 X3D is expected to be priced at 7800 X3D levels or higher.

AMD has this territory completely encircled with similarly priced options.

Platform and Efficiency Considerations [03:51]

A key consideration for Intel's Arrow Lake is the new platform, requiring new LGA 1851 motherboards, which are described as some of the most expensive seen for this class.
Higher memory speeds can benefit the platform but increase costs.
A positive aspect is the reduced power consumption, leading to less demanding cooler requirements compared to prior Intel generations.
Overall power consumption is generally lower than AMD, with some exceptions.

A positive though the reduced power consumption means reduced cooler requirements as compared to Intel prior generations.

SZip Compression Efficiency [04:40]

Efficiency testing uses ATX 12v and EPS 12v rails.
The 265K consumed 163 Watts, achieving 968 MIPS per watt, which is less efficient than the 285K (162 Watts, 1051 MIPS per watt).
AMD CPUs like the 7800X3D, 7700, 9700X, and even the older 3700X rank higher in efficiency than the 265K.
The 265K is only better than the 950X, 2700, 5800X, and some Intel CPUs in this metric.
In decompression efficiency, the 265K falls below the 285K, consuming similar power but yielding lower throughput.
The 265K is marginally less efficient than the 245K, significantly behind the 285K, and only slightly ahead of prior Intel generations.
There's a 47% improvement over the 14700K, which is noted as a good uplift.
However, AMD CPUs, like the 750X in eco mode (87% more efficient) and the 9700X (1624 MIPS per watt, more efficient), dominate the top of the chart. Even the 950X is more efficient.

The 265k really is only better than the 950x the 2700 the 5800 X and Intel's own lineup here.

Gaming Efficiency Testing [06:43]

Gaming efficiency testing is still being developed and refined.
The 265K consumed 89 Watts, placing it just below the 285K in efficiency, effectively tied when rounded.
Both the 265K and 285K are not particularly impressive compared to the 7800 X3D or 5700 X3D, which offer higher frame rates at lower power consumption.
The 245K is more efficient than the 285K and 265K (1.3 FPS per watt), tied with the 7700 and 9700X in Final Fantasy 14.
The 265K is the least efficient of the three Intel parts tested so far in this game, despite an improvement over the 14700K.
The 7800 X3D leads significantly with 8.3 FPS per watt, a 131% improvement.

The 265k ends up being the least efficient of these three parts so far on this chart.

Stellaris Simulation Time [09:27]

In Stellaris, the 265K achieved 1.5 simulations per watt-hour, similar to the 5800X.
Compared to Intel's 14700K, there's a 50% uplift over its predecessor.
AMD's 9600X is close in performance and holds an advantage at 1.7 simulations per watt-hour.
The 265K consumed 144 Watts, similar to the 285K, but its efficiency is worse due to lower performance.
The 285K appears to be a better bin, and the 265K is about the same as the 14600K.
It improves on the 14700K with a 0.6 FPS per watt result.

The 265k here pulled 144 Watts putting it around the same as the 285k.

Dragon's Dogma 2 and F1 24 Benchmarks [10:29]

In Dragon's Dogma 2, the 265K averaged 99 FPS, 4.6% ahead of the 245K and about 4-5 FPS behind the 285K.
The 14700K leads the 265K by 88.6%, and the 7800 X3D leads by 11%.
The 265K offers worse value than the 245K in this game.
In F1 24, the 265K shows a 7.5% uplift in frame rate over the 245K, positioning it equivalent to the AMD 7700X.
The 285K is only 4% ahead of the 265K, making it poor value for gaming.
The 5700 X3D provides better value, showing the poor value of the 265K and 285K at 1440p.

The 265k is just not impressive in this test even against it's already unimpressive Brethren of the same 200 series or Series 2 or whatever Intel is calling it.

Final Fantasy 14 and Baldur's Gate 3 [12:46]

In Final Fantasy 14 at 1080p, AMD dominates the chart. The 265K achieved 236 FPS, behind the 12900K and the R9 7900NX.
The 14700K is 21.7% ahead of the 265K.
The reviewer states that almost anything else makes more sense than Arrow Lake in this benchmark, noting regressive performance.
In Baldur's Gate 3, the 265K averaged 96 FPS, tying with the 12900K and only slightly leading the 245K.
The 14700K leads by 6%, and the 7800 X3D leads by 32%.
The 265K offers better value than the 285K but still not significant value compared to alternatives.

Almost anything else makes more sense than AOL Lake and this Benchmark.

Stellaris Simulation and Rainbow Six Siege [14:38]

In Stellaris, testing late-game simulation time, the 265K averaged 33.9 seconds, close to the 3900K (33.5s) and 7700 non-X (34.2s). Lower is better.
The 14700K and 14900K show a 2% reduction in simulation time compared to the 265K.
The 9600X offers a 1.2-second reduction. Zen 5 generally performs well, with the 9700X at the top.
The 285K performed better relative to the 14 series in this test but was still beaten by AMD's 7800 X3D and 9700x.
In Rainbow Six Siege, the 265K ran at 519 FPS average, behind the 5700 X3D and 5600 X3D.
The 14600K and 13600K are functionally tied or better in average FPS with superior 0.1% lows.
The 7800 X3D leads the 265K by 20%, and the 9600X leads by 19%.

This is something that I see a lot in Galactic Civilizations 4 for example.

Starfield and Production Benchmarks [17:00]

In Starfield, the 265K achieved 134 FPS average, ahead of the 5800X2 but behind the 13700K and 14700K.
The 7800 X3D leads due to its cache boost.
The 265K shows an 11% improvement over the 245K and leads the 5700 X3D by 13%.
AMD historically has had issues with Starfield.
In Blender (3D rendering), the 265K took 8.7 minutes, an 8% reduction compared to the 14700K and a 20% reduction from the 13700K.
AMD's 7950X in eco mode leads the 265K by 8%.
The 265K beats the 7800X in render time, and has a 31% reduction against the 245K due to increased core count.

The 265k required 8.7 minutes to complete the render that has it near the 14900 K against the 14700 K.

Szip Compression and Premiere Pro [18:43]

In Szip compression, the 265K ran at 158,000 MIPS, tied with AMD's R9 7700X and behind the 9900X.
It improves on the 245K by 29% throughput, with the 285K leading by 8%.
The 900X is slightly more expensive and performs better. The 14700K is cheaper but uses more power for 8% better performance.
The 7950X is a strong performer but depends heavily on price.
In decompression, the 265K scored 168,000 MIPS, behind the 14700K.
The 14700K leads the 265K by 15.7%.
In Premiere Pro, the 265K scored 10,718 points, tied with the Eco Mode 7950X and 9900X.
It leads the 13700K by 1% and the 14700K by 2.4%. The 285K outranked the 14900K, leading the 265K by 5.8%.

The 265k ran at 158,000 mips which puts it roughly tied with amd's r9700 X and behind the 9900x.

Overall Efficiency and Value Proposition [21:18]

The 265K is often less efficient than the 285K due to the 285K's better performance in tasks.
It is more efficient than its 14th generation predecessor but not always more performant.
AMD processors are consistently more efficient across the board.
The 285K offers exceptionally bad value for gaming users, with performance worse than cheaper AMD alternatives.
The 245K makes even less sense, with production use cases effectively vanishing as an argument.
The 265K's cost increase over the 245K doesn't translate to proportional performance gains in gaming.
In production, the 265K makes a stronger argument for itself and can sometimes outperform its AMD competitors in price.
Efficiency has improved but is not as good as AMD.

It's just that ultimately it's not a sweeping victory for Intel is there is no clear reason to buy one of these three parts.

Final Recommendations and External Issues [23:36]

There is no clear, sweeping reason to buy any of the three Intel processors reviewed.
For gaming, the primary recommendations are the 7800 X3D and 5700 X3D based on budget.
Cheaper older Intel CPUs like the 12600 KF are also mentioned as surprisingly inexpensive.
For production use cases, arguments can be made, but it's not a sweeping victory.
Arrow Lake has external issues, including misrepresentation of features like APO (Advanced Performance Optimizer) being enabled by default.
There were also issues with Windows setup and Easy Anti-Cheat.
The overall conclusion is that Intel doesn't have its product situation together, leading to a lack of strong recommendations.