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

The 265K is currently available for $404 on Newegg and Amazon right now. That puts it predictably between the $630 285K and $320-$330 245K. As a recap, thus far, the 245K has made the least sense since it’s more gaming-oriented and less focused on potential workstation applications, whereas the 285K could maybe make an argument in some workstation or production use cases. The 265K theoretically balances between.

Intel 265K Price Comparison

We’ll start with a quick pricing recap of what’s available around the time we’re writing this review.

CPU Price Comparison | GamersNexusLate October, 2024

The 265K is about $404 right now, which is fitting, because…Error Lake value can’t be found.

The price has it similar to the 7900X, which is currently $400. The 7900 non-X is $370 or so, with the 9700X at $330. The 9900X is $430. AMD has this territory encircled with similarly priced options. The 7800X3D comes in 19% more expensive at $480 and would also be less viable in most production use cases we test, but far more viable in gaming scenarios. If you’re only doing one of those, that allows you to either ignore or focus on the 7800X3D (watch our review). If you’re doing both, that’d be where the 265K might make sense -- if it’s not beaten by Intel’s own 14700K at $350 and 13700K at $290. 

And AMD has announced that its 9800X3D will be arriving on November 7th. We’re not sure what it’ll cost yet, so it’s possible it’s not a direct comparison here.

As a reminder, other considerations for Arrow Lake are that it requires an entirely new platform and Z890 boards are some of the most expensive we’ve seen in a given class. It also benefits from faster, more expensive RAM in ways that other CPUs can cut costs and corners. As a positive though, the reduced power consumption means reduced cooler requirements as compared to the prior Intel generations, so that can reduce some cost.

That’s it for the basics and positioning. If you want more, check out the prior two reviews or the efficiency bench setup video. Let’s just get right into it.

Intel 265K Efficiency Testing

Our efficiency testing has been explained in-depth in two pieces now and briefly introduced in a third. To learn more about what we’re doing here, check out our 285K review and our preceding video where we set up our monstrous test bench.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Compression

We’ll start with 7-Zip compression efficiency. We’re just going with the ATX12V and EPS12V rails for now, as we still think these are the closest to accurate on our setup.

The 265K ended up at 163W in this test, which has the efficiency at 968 MIPS/W. That has the CPU as less efficient than the 285K, which pulled 162W on the same ATX12V and EPS12V rails, but produced a higher throughput, yielding a 1051 MIPS/W result.

AMD’s 7800X3D, 7700, 9700X, and everything else, including the 3700X (read our revisit) from 2019, ranks above the 265K as a result. The 265K really is only better than the 9950X, 2700 (read our revisit), 5800X, and Intel’s own lineup here.

Efficiency: 7-Zip Decompression

In decompression efficiency, the 265K repeats its rank and falls below the 1194.9 MIPS/W result of the 285K. The power drawn is the same since this test suite runs both consecutively and at about the same power level. The end result is that the 265K is marginally less efficient than the 245K, more meaningfully behind the 285K, and is otherwise mostly just ahead of the prior Intel CPUs. Generationally, the improvement on the 14700K is actually good. It’s 47%. It’s a real uplift, and Intel does deserve credit for that; however, again, the entire top half of the chart is AMD-dominated. It’s just not even close. The 7950X in Eco Mode leads the 265K in efficiency with an advantage of 87%. The 9700X (read our review) is cheaper and also holds a substantial lead, up at 1624 MIPS/W. The 9700X won’t produce as high of a result in this test as the 265K for raw performance, but in efficiency, it is more efficient.

Even the 9950X, which is AMD’s highest power draw non-HEDT part we’re testing right now, is more efficient than the 265K. This is partly because its performance is so much higher in this test.

Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3

Here’s gaming with Baldur’s Gate 3. Here, the 265K pulled 89W when measuring both the ATX12V and EPS12V rails. That has it similar to the 285K. We noticed during this testing an initially higher reading on the 265K by almost 10W exactly, but after troubleshooting Vcore and CPU Package Power, we were able to isolate that 10W as being from a measurement tool difference on the 265K platform. We were able to make adjustments to effectively calibrate it for the data we had from all other tests on this chart. As we’ve stated, this is all brand new methodology and is more complicated because of ASUS’ decisions to split the rails for the CPU, but we’re staying on top of hunting down these deviations and accounting for them. This also means we’re going to continue studying the measurements and tools to refine the readings.

With the 89W measurement, the 265K ends up just below the 285K for efficiency (tied when rounded). Its performance is lower, but power is similar, so the two are effectively equal. The TDP is the same on these CPUs, so if they’re drawing up to the power limit, then this is expected.

Neither of these is particularly impressive when considering the 7800X3D or 5700X3D, both of which have higher framerate and lower power consumption, resulting in higher efficiency. The 245K (read our review) is more efficient than the 285K and 265K, up at 1.3 FPS/W and tied with the 7700 and 9700X.

Efficiency: FFXIV Dawntrail

In Final Fantasy 14, the 265K calibrated to prior tests pulled 65.5W during our testing. We didn’t add a line item for ATX5V in this one since we’ve been saying that we don’t think its impact on the CPU is significant in any way.

This lands the 265K at around the same power consumption as the 285K for the same two rails. The efficiency is lower because the framerate is lower. The 245K is more efficient, up at 4.3 FPS/W. 

The 265K is the least efficient of these three parts so far on this chart. It’s still improved on the 14700K (read our review), but because the performance is regressive in this particular title -- and by a lot -- the efficiency struggles to take off despite the reduction in power consumption from what was 98.2W.

The 7800X3D has an efficiency lead at 8.3 FPS/W, or a 131% improvement. This is actual insanity. The large framerate boost combined with the steep power reduction gives AMD a big lead here. Again, whether you’re talking outright efficiency or environmental stewardship and absolute power consumption, the answer to both of these would be AMD as the most efficient. Intel cannot fight on these grounds, despite improvements over its own prior architecture.

Efficiency: Stellaris

Stellaris is up.

In this one, we have the 265K at 1.5 simulations per watt-hour, about the same as the 5800X, especially considering rounding. 

If we look for a performance-normalized comparison, the closest would be Intel’s own 14700K. The uplift over the predecessor is 50%. AMD’s 9600X is somewhat close in performance as well, yet holds an advantage at 1.7 simulations per watt-hour.

Efficiency: Starfield

We didn’t capture power data for the 245K in Starfield, but we have the 265K and 285K.

The 265K here pulled 144W, putting it around the same as the 285K. Because the performance declines and the power is the same, the efficiency is worse than the 285K once again. The 285K appears to be a better bin in combination with higher efficiency.

The 265K ends up about the same as the 14600K. Fortunately, it improves on the 14700K’s 0.6 FPS/W result. The 14900K has a lower power consumption than the 14700K as a result of an external bottleneck limiting CPU utilization and also the binning. It can’t be fully leveraged. The 285K and 265K are both fully engaged though.

Intel 265K Gaming Benchmarks

Dragon’s Dogma 2

Dragon’s Dogma 2 is up. In this one, the 265K ran at 99 FPS AVG, which has it 4.6% ahead of the 245K and means the 285K is about 4-5 FPS ahead of the 265K. The 14700K leads the 265K by 8.6%, with the 13700K about the same. The AMD 7800X3D is ahead by 11%, with the cheaper 5700X3D also ahead of the 265K while running on an older, cheaper platform.

The 265K is worse value than even the 245K in this particular game, and we wouldn’t recommend that one, either. Its low performance here is fine, with no particularly meaningful deviation from the expectation, but overall, the 265K is just not impressive in this test even against its already unimpressive brethren of the same 200 Series. Or Series 2. Or whatever Intel is calling it.

F1 24 - 1080p

F1 24 is up now. In the very least, the gap is wider against the 245K, now with a 7.5% uplift in framerate. Lows increased proportionally with the average.

This positions the 265K as equivalent to the AMD 7700X and a bit ahead of the 7700 (watch our review) and 7900 non-X parts. The 7900X is functionally tied with the 265K, making it both performance and price matched in this test -- at least, at the prices right around launch.

The 285K’s 343.5 FPS AVG has it just 4% ahead of the 265K. It wouldn’t be worth buying the $630 285K regardless, and especially not for gaming, but it’s especially not worth it here. Even the 265K makes more sense, and it still doesn’t make a ton of sense.

The 5700X3D (read our review) further establishes that storyline with its 355 FPS result, led further by the once-upon-a-time cheaper 5600X3D (when it was briefly available at Micro Center). That one has a lead because its frequency is higher.

F1 24 - 1440p

At 1440p, we see some drop in performance from the resolution change, but a similar hierarchy overall. The 265K ends up sandwiched between the 14600K and 13600K as we bounce off of occasional framerate limits. The entire top of the chart is brushing against external bottlenecks at least occasionally, so let’s move on.

FFXIV Dawntrail - 1080p

Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail is up now, first at 1080p.

AMD holds a domineering lead over this chart and keeps a stranglehold on the top 3 entries, with 4th held closely against the 14900K with APO on. 

The 265K landed at 236 FPS AVG here, which has the 12900K ahead of it by 4%. The R9 7900 non-X also leads, up at 253FPS AVG and holding an advantage of 7.4%. Even the 7600X leads. The 14700K’s 287 FPS AVG result has it 21.7% ahead of the 265K, establishing, without a doubt, that the 265K has gotten thoroughly “wrekt” in this test against its predecessor. The 285K also did poorly in this game; in fact, this is one of the games Intel openly stated it has regressive performance in, and we can definitely confirm that. Almost anything else makes more sense than Arrow Lake in this benchmark.

Baldur’s Gate 3

Baldur’s Gate 3 had the 265K at 96 FPS AVG, which ties it almost perfectly with the 12900K. That includes tying the 1% lows, with 0.1% close to the usual wider error range. The 265K only leads the 245K by a few FPS on average, rendering it relatively uninteresting. The 245K was already terrible value against alternatives here, and that includes not just the clearly dominant X3D CPUs -- where we have 4, and soon to be 5, topping the chart -- but also Intel’s own prior CPUs. The 14700K leads the 265K by 6%, and for perspective, the 7800X3D leads it by 32%. The 5800X3D (watch our review) isn’t far below that, at 120 FPS AVG. The 5700X3D, which is around $200 to $230 lately (but has been cheaper), has an advantage over the 265K of 16.4%.

For the 265K, we’re just not seeing it in this one.

Stellaris Simulation Time

Stellaris is up now. This one uses a late game save file and tests for simulation time rather than framerate. Players of 4X games are likely aware of how bogged-down the CPU can get in late game stages. 

The 265K required an average of 33.9 seconds for its simulation. The 13900K averaged 33.5 seconds, with the 7700 non-X at 34.2. The 14700K predecessor is indistinguishable from the 14900K (read our review) here, with both exhibiting a 2% simulation time reduction from the 265K.

The 9600X is also improved, with a simulation time reduction of 1.2 seconds. Zen 5 generally does well in this test, shown also with the 9700X at the top.

The 285K with our default settings did better in this one relative to the 14 series than other tests, but was still beaten by AMD’s 7800X3D and 9700X.

Rainbow Six Siege

Rainbow Six Siege is up now. In this test, the 265K ran at 519 FPS AVG. We observed that the 285K had frametime pacing issues in this game as compared to the 14 series, which persist here. Our 285K review remarked that we think this may be related to specific optimizations made by the Rainbow Six team, as APO’s benefit has been reduced to effectively nothing.

By average FPS, the 265K is behind the 5700X3D, and further behind the higher clocked 5600X3D. Both of these AMD CPUs have better 0.1% lows; however, the 14600K has far superior 0.1% lows than all 3 of these and is functionally tied in average FPS with the 265K. It’s within error for average, but better in low performance. The same goes for the 13600K, embarrassingly for the 265K.

Here’s how it stacks up: The 7800X3D leads the 265K by 20%, the 9600X leads it by 19%, the 14900K with APO off by 13%, and the 285K with APO off by 12%. Even the 7900X (read our review) leads here, and that’s not explicitly been branded as a gaming part, yet competes in both production workloads and price.

Starfield

Starfield is up now. This one has the 265K at 134 FPS AVG, just ahead of the 5800X3D and behind the 13700K (watch our review) and 14700K. These two CPUs (and the 14900K) are all bouncing off of another limit, and the 285K with DDR5-8600 makes it appear as if that limit is memory. This is also reinforced by the cache-boosted 7800X3D propelling to the top here.

The 265K has an improvement on the 245K’s average FPS of 120.5 of 11%. It also leads the 5700X3D here by 13%.

AMD has historically had issues with Starfield, despite being the GPU sponsor for the game. The 9600X is less competitive in this gaming test than some of the others, down at 101 FPS AVG.

265K Production Benchmarks

Time to move on to production benchmarks. This testing will look at a shortened list of workstation applications.

Blender

Blender is up now for a 3D rendering benchmark.

In this one, the 265K required 8.7 minutes to complete the render. That has it near the 14900K. Against the 14700K, the 265K also benefits from a render time reduction of 8%, meaning 8% less time required to complete the work. The reduction in time required against the 13700K is 20%, down from almost 11 minutes. AMD’s 7950X in ECO mode leads the 265K with an 8% reduction in render time needed, with the non-ECO result at 7.4 minutes and in line behind the 285K. 

The 265K beats the 7900X, which at least helps its positioning against similarly priced AMD competition. That isn’t always the case.

The 265K also benefits from a 31% reduction in render time requirement against the 245K.

7-Zip Compression

7-Zip Compression is up now. In this test, the 265K ran at 158K MIPS, which puts it roughly tied with AMD’s R9 7900X and behind the 9900X. The 265K improves on the 245K by 29% in throughput, with the 285K leading the 265K by 8%. This is a test where we saw a large improvement from the memory upgrade in our 285K test with DDR5-8600. We might revisit that topic if we can find some time.

The 9900X (read our review) is about 6% more expensive than the 265K right now and performs about 3.5% better. The 14700K is cheaper than the 265K, but uses more power to score 8% better. The 7950X (watch our review) is one of the more interesting CPUs still, but it depends heavily on price. It’s listed at $500 as we write this, or about 24% more than the $405 listing for the 265K on Newegg. The 7950X performs 18% better without Eco Mode on and similarly with it enabled.

7-Zip Decompression

In Decompression, the 265K ran at 168K MIPS and landed just behind the two-generation-old 13700K. The refreshed version of that, the 14700K, is up at 195K MIPS, landing the 14700K ahead of both the 285K and the 265K. The 285K only topples it when upgraded with faster memory, but of course, giving the same treatment to the 14700K would also leapfrog it ahead.

The 14700K leads the 265K by 15.7%. The 265K leads AMD’s 7700X by 19%. X3D doesn’t really help here, so the 7800X3D and 5700X3D fall down the stack comparatively, despite strong gaming performance and really good efficiency.

AMD’s production-oriented 7900X leads the 265K by a staggering 24%, with the 9900X leading by 27%. The 7900X is currently the same price as the 265K, making it a better value in this comparison.

Adobe Premiere

Adobe Premiere is up next, tested with the Puget suite.

In this one, the 265K scored 10718 points in aggregate. Puget Systems takes the intraframe score, RAW score, GPU effective, and other filter and editing testing into consideration for this score.

The score has it roughly tied with the eco mode 7950X and 9900X. Its advantage over the 7900X is at least a little more, at 8%. The 7900 (watch our review) scored similarly. The 265K also leads the 13700K by 1%, so basically error. The 14700K leads the 265K by 2.4%.

The 285K did well in this particular test and managed to outrank the 14900K, leading the 265K by 5.8%.

Intel 265K Conclusion

The 265K is, in several cases, less efficient than our 285K. That’s not unheard of: The 285K is a higher performer, which benefits the efficiency, and the power budget is the same. Still, it’s improved over the 14700K. Intel has retained that much, but as we said before, in all comparisons we run, AMD is more efficient still.

So that wraps-up that side of things.

It’s clear once again that the 265K is surrounded by good options on all sides. The 285K is exceptionally bad value for gaming users, with worse performance than you’d get on a $230 5700X3D or $480 7800X3D and also a far higher cost. In non-gaming uses, there are some limited scenarios where you could make an argument for the 285K, but they are relatively rare among our test suite.

The 245K made even less sense: Production use cases effectively vanish as an argument, as the part is majority targeted at gaming users. In gaming, it gets absolutely crushed by not only AMD’s $100 cheaper 5700X3D (which itself would give you $100 more budget to either keep or throw at a GPU), but also by Intel’s own predecessors that are now cheaper or the same price.

The 265K suffers from a bit of both: The cost goes up by $70-$90, and yet the performance doesn’t scale anywhere close to linearly in gaming. The production performance is better, and in that situation almost solely, the 265K can make some stronger arguments for itself. It can outmatch its closest price competitors from AMD at times, so that’s at least good for the 265K. It’s just not a sweeping victory and Intel’s total platform cost is also questionable, especially with the potentially short lifespan of this one.

That’ll wrap our reviews of these for now. We’ll have more Arrow Lake content, but as far as the core part reviews, they’re done until Intel launches more. We wanted to keep this one concise.