[ad_1]
Intel’s Core Extremely 7 265K CPU examined Up to date: Oct 30, 2024 5:45 pm WePC is reader-supported. Once you purchase by means of hyperlinks on our web site, we might earn an affiliate fee. Costs topic to alter. Study extra Desk of Contents Desk of Contents Intel’s fifteenth era CPU lineup is right here, and with it comes the newest rebrand to the Core Extremely 200 collection. The 265K is Intel’s successor to the i7 14700K, which must be a mashup between the 245K and the 285K. However with the Core Extremely collection being met with very unfavorable opinions, will or not it’s definitely worth the price ticket? The Core Extremely 7 265K ships with 20 cores and 20 whole threads. The keen-eyed amongst you’ll have noticed that the equal numbers point out that SMT or hyperthreading has been ditched for the Core Extremely collection in favour of higher effectivity. Talking of effectivity, it’s up massively in comparison with Raptor Lake R, however at what price? If you wish to know what we consider the opposite CPUs within the collection, you may try our 285K and 245K evaluations – to present you a small spoiler, we weren’t satisfied. Specs Core configuration: 20 (8+12) Threads: 20 P-Core Pace: 5.4 GHz (enhance) 3.9 GHz (base) E-Core Pace: 4.6 GHz (enhance) 3.3 GHz (base) DDR5 assist: DDR5 @ 6400 MT/s TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (excessive): 125W / 250W / 250W / 250W What We Suppose The Core Extremely 7 265K showcases spectacular effectivity with its 20 cores and 20 threads, leveraging a 3 nm manufacturing course of to boost energy utilization. Whereas it delivers stable efficiency in multi-core duties, it falls behind in gaming in comparison with opponents just like the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Priced at $404, it’s a good choice for productivity-focused customers, however its gaming capabilities depart one thing to be desired, making it much less interesting for avid gamers in search of high efficiency. Causes to Purchase Robust multi-core efficiency Competitively priced Causes to Keep away from Falls brief in gaming workloads Not as environment friendly because the 285K LGA 1851 motherboard required Specs and comparability To focus on the principle modifications Intel has made to the Core Extremely 7 265K, we’ll be evaluating its specs to its predecessor, the i7 14700K. We’ve finished this to see how the CPU has modified when evaluating it to final era’s model. It additionally helps us estimate how the CPU will carry out in sure testing areas, earlier than we truly put it by means of real-world eventualities. Studying to learn specs can enormously assist assess a CPU use case. Part Core Extremely 265K14700KCores2020Threads 2028Hybrid architectureP-core: 8E-core: 12P-core: 8E-core: 12Base frequencyP-core: 3.9 GHzE-core: 3.3 GHzP-core: 3.4 GHzE-core: 2.5 GHzBoost frequency P-core: 5.4 GHzE-core: 4.6 GHzP-core: 5.6 GHzE-core: 4.3 GHzBoost 3.05.5 GHz5.6 GHzTurbo clock as much as 5.5 GHzup to five.6 GHzMemory speed6400 MT/s5600 MT/sPCI Categorical lanes20 (Gen 5)16 (Gen 5)L2 cache 3 MB (per core)2 MB (per core)L3 cache30 MB (shared)33 MB (shared)TDP / PL1 / PL2 / PL2 (excessive)125W / 250W / 250W / 250W125W / 253W / 253W / UnlimitedProcess size3 nm10 nmSocketLGA 1815 (suitable with Z980)LGA 1700 (suitable with Z790, B760, Z690, B660, H610)Core Ultea 265K vs 14700K specs We are able to observe a number of variations between the 265K and the 14700K, the most important of which is the Core Extremely 7’s lack of hyperthreading. Intel has opted to ditch hyperthreading, almost definitely to protect effectivity, however this can be Intel’s undoing. The opposite notable change is the large drop within the manufacturing course of; Intel has managed to drop from their 10 nm course of to TSMC’s 3 nm course of. Because of this Intel can squeeze a lot effectivity out of those Skymont E-cores (as much as 35% extra effectivity, claims Intel). Sadly, it appears nearly all the things has been restricted on the 265K. Base core speeds are up, however most enhance speeds can’t sustain with the 14700K. Once more, that is probably an effort to extend the chip’s effectivity. The PL2 has additionally been restricted to 250W fairly than limitless – however this may be disabled within the BIOS. That stated, let’s take a look at this chip and hope it doesn’t undergo the identical points as the opposite two within the collection. Design and Gallery The design hasn’t modified a lot bodily over the earlier era, however so much has modified internally. The principle level is the hyperthreading we already touched upon. The bottom of the CPU now has extra pins to accommodate the brand new LGA 1851 socket that comes on suitable motherboards (bear in mind, you can’t use this CPU on previous-gen motherboards). 265K and field contents 265K Infront of field contact pads 265K subsequent to field 265K in entrance of field ihs 265K and field on desk 265K on desk 265K on desk up shut Earlier Subsequent Efficiency Earlier than we focus on the outcomes of our testing, it’s necessary to stipulate the entire specs of our take a look at rig. This may assist us perceive how and why the {hardware} managed to benchmark because it did. The selection of GPU issues much less for artificial efficiency, nevertheless it’s necessary for gaming. To maintain issues truthful, we attempt to preserve all elements as related as potential, even throughout generations. We are able to examine the {hardware} and decide which elements are higher for sure workloads. If you wish to know extra, you may try our how we take a look at CPUs web page. Part WePC take a look at rigCPUIntel Core Extremely 285KCoolerCorsair H150i Elite LCDMotherboardASUS Maximus Excessive Z890MemoryCorsair Dominator Platinum DDR5 @6800 MHzGPUMSI RTX 4070 Ti PSUASUS Thor Platinum II 1000WCaseCooler Grasp Masterframe WePC take a look at bench elements As you may see, we spare no expense when testing the newest {hardware} as a result of we would like the element we’re testing to be the core focus of the benchmark. With that in thoughts, right here’s how the 265K carried out in our gaming benchmarks. Graphs We created graphs to show the entire necessary benchmarking info, making it simpler to grasp. 265K common FPS 265K common PPT 265K synth multi core 265K synth single core Earlier Subsequent Gaming efficiency We put the Core Extremely 265K by means of quite a lot of sport benchmarks to essentially take a look at its vary. All video games had been set to 1080p at low settings to maintain the main focus squarely on CPU efficiency, avoiding any GPU bottlenecks. The video games we selected spanned the spectrum, from CPU-intensive titles to much less demanding ones, giving us a complete take a look at how the 265K handles completely different hundreds. Right here’s the lineup, benchmarked in sequence: MetricCS2Days GoneDoom EternalHorizon FWFrost punk 2Score (FPS)AVG: 212.899%: 137.9AVG: 212.899%: 137.9AVG: 495.799%: 347.8AVG: 192.299%: 139.3AVG: 85.799%: 65.3AVG temp (package deal) °C4946514947Max temp (package deal) °C5751555251Average PPT (W)96.66W61.88W119.85W102.55W82.32WWePC Core Extremely 7 265K gaming benchmarks The Core Extremely 265K’s gaming efficiency, whereas respectable, wasn’t significantly spectacular in these assessments. Though it maintained easy body charges throughout titles like CS2 and Days Gone at round 212.8 FPS, its gaming efficiency didn’t stand out. Even with Doom Everlasting hitting excessive averages at 495.7 FPS, the outcomes didn’t present the leap ahead some may count on from a new-gen CPU. With temperatures staying inside affordable limits and energy draw beneath management, it’s clear that the 265K is extra about balanced effectivity than groundbreaking gaming efficiency. Compared in opposition to the 7800X3D (a CPU equally priced when not being scalped), the gaming efficiency woes change into way more obvious. CPUCS2Days GoneDoom EternalCore Extremely 7 265KAVG: 212.899%: 137.9AVG: 212.899%: 137.9AVG: 495.799%: 347.8Ryzen 7 7800X3DAVG: 348.499%: 151.62AVG: 258.499%: 152.7AVG: 526.499%: 398.1WePC 265K vs 7800X3D gaming efficiency In titles like CS2 and Doom Everlasting, the 7800X3D achieves increased common and 99th percentile body charges, with CS2 reaching a mean of 348.4 FPS versus the 265K’s 309.7 FPS. Doom Everlasting reveals the same development, with the 7800X3D averaging 526.4 FPS, considerably outpacing the 265K’s 495.7 FPS. Moreover, energy effectivity leans within the 7800X3D’s favour, particularly in additional demanding titles. The 7800X3D runs cooler beneath load as effectively, which could possibly be an element for customers centered on thermals and effectivity in prolonged gaming classes. Whereas the 265K presents respectable numbers, the 7800X3D’s efficiency edge in these benchmarks makes it a extra enticing alternative for avid gamers in search of most FPS in the same worth bracket. Artificial efficiency We ran the 265K by means of standard benchmarking software program that has an expansive library of outcomes for each processor; this implies you may examine outcomes along with your CPU to see the way it stacks up. MetricCPU ZCinebench R23GeekbenchBlender renderScore (factors)Single 866.8Multi 15,387Single 2.037Multi 33,429Single 2,985Multi 21,699Monster: 213.15Junkshop: 143.42Classroom: 105.42 AVG temp (package deal) °C55Single: 48Multi: 634462Max temp (package deal) °C65Single: 54Multi: 696070Average PPT (W)105.07WSingle: 52.52W Multi: 162.63W48.35W162.08WWePC Core Extremely 7 265K artificial benchmarks When pitting the Core Extremely 265K in opposition to the Ryzen 7 9700X in artificial benchmarks, it turns into clear the place every CPU stands. The 265K pulls forward in multi-core duties, however its single-core efficiency leaves a bit to be desired, particularly when in comparison with the 9700X. Whereas the 265K scores a stable 866.8 in CPU-Z single-core, the Ryzen 7 9700X truly edges it out in Cinebench R23 single-core with a rating of two,207 versus the 265K’s 2,037. In Geekbench single-core, the 9700X additionally leads with 3,376, outpacing the 265K’s 2,985. Nonetheless, the 265K reveals its benefit in multi-core efficiency. It scores 15,387 in CPU-Z multi-core and 33,429 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, considerably outperforming the 9700X’s 8,199 and 20,184 in the identical assessments. In Geekbench, the 265K once more leads with 21,699 in multi-core in comparison with the 9700X’s 17,290, highlighting its potential for multi-threaded duties and intensive workloads. The Core Extremely 265K is a robust alternative for customers centered on multi-core efficiency, making it an ideal match for rendering, encoding, and different parallelized functions. However in case you’re after single-core velocity for duties like gaming or functions that don’t totally make the most of a number of threads, the 9700X could be the higher worth on this worth bracket. It’s necessary to keep in mind that the 9700X’s outcomes had been pre-105W TDP patch, so the CPU is barely operating at 65W. The 265K’s increased energy consumption and warmth beneath heavy hundreds additionally make it extra of a dedication for these prioritizing effectivity. Nonetheless, although, Intel’s generational enhancements in effectivity are nothing wanting superb. Temperature and effectivity CPUCinebench R32 (multi)CS2Days GoneDoom EternalCore Extremely 265KScore: 33,429Max temp: 69°CMax PPT: 162.63WAVG: 309.7Max temp: 49°CMax PPT: 86.59WAVG: 212.8Max temp: 57°CMax PPT: 96.66WAVG: 495.7Max temp: 55°CMax PPT: 119.85WCore Extremely 285K Rating: 42,399Max temp: 73°CMax PPT: 160.06WAVG: 313.8Max temp: 48°CMax PPT: 48.5WAVG: 236.952Max temp: 51°CMax PPT: 61.88WAVG: 499.82Max temp: 54°CMax PPT: 108.04WRyzen 9 9950X Rating: 40,166Max temp: 64°CMax PPT: 167.67WAVG: 323.7Max temp: 62°CMax PPT: 113.55WAVG: 237.4Max temp: 73°CMax PPT: 108.33WAVG: 507.658Max temp: 62°CMax PPT: 155.96WWePC 265K vs 285K vs 9950X testing We examined the ability effectivity of the Core Extremely 265K and pitted it in opposition to different top-performing CPUs. The 265K operates with a most temperature of 69°C and a PPT of 162.63W, displaying balanced efficiency however comparatively excessive thermals. The 285K, with its increased efficiency capabilities, reaches 73°C and a PPT of 160.06W, indicating that whereas it could ship energy and is marketed in direction of effectivity, you’ll want cooler to maintain throttling at bay in some eventualities. In distinction, the Ryzen 9 9950X reveals spectacular thermal effectivity, peaking at a decrease temperature of 64°C with a PPT of 167.67W. This environment friendly thermal profile not solely suggests efficient warmth dissipation but additionally factors to the 9950X’s potential to take care of efficiency beneath stress, making it a robust alternative for customers involved about long-term reliability throughout intensive duties. Whereas the 265K and 285K are marketed in direction of effectivity, they nonetheless can’t beat AMD. This is smart since AMD has been the highest performer in effectivity for a very long time now, nevertheless it’s definitely an enchancment on the older generations of Intel CPUs. Worth The Core Extremely 9 265K enters the scene at a aggressive $404, positioning itself attractively in a worth bracket the place it faces off in opposition to high-performing contenders. In comparison with the flagship Core Extremely 285K at $589, the 265K retains a lot of the flagship’s effectivity prowess at a extra accessible worth. This positions it effectively, particularly if productiveness and multi-threading are high priorities. Nonetheless, for these leaning towards AMD, the Ryzen 9 9700X at $324 and the Ryzen 9 7900X at $398 are additionally sturdy opponents, particularly in gaming. In Intel’s lineup, the Core i7-14700K, at $347, presents related efficiency however falls brief in multi-core workloads as a result of its core configuration. The 265K, with its mix of energy effectivity and stable clock speeds, handles most gaming duties and multi-threaded workflows effectively – proving it’s able to punching above its weight. Nonetheless, shifting to the fifteenth era requires upgrading Intel’s new LGA 1851 motherboard. With the 265K, Intel has introduced a balanced alternative within the mid-range. It performs effectively throughout numerous multi-core duties; it’s only a disgrace that it’s so unhealthy for gaming. Is the 265K value it? Whereas the 265K comes with 20 cores and 20 threads (having ditched hyperthreading for improved effectivity), it doesn’t considerably outperform its rivals, particularly in gaming. Sure, it boasts spectacular effectivity enhancements over the earlier era, however at what price? In specs, the 265K might have some benefits – like its manufacturing course of shrinking from 10 nm to three nm. This transition permits for higher effectivity, with Intel claiming as much as 35% extra effectivity. Nonetheless, that doesn’t essentially translate to efficiency. In gaming benchmarks, it struggles to maintain up with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which presents increased common and 99th percentile FPS throughout a number of titles. Regardless of its respectable efficiency in artificial benchmarks, the place it shines in multi-core duties, its single-core efficiency is lacklustre in comparison with AMD’s choices, particularly for gaming lovers. Whereas it hits aggressive pricing at $404, its principal rivals, the Ryzen 9 9700X at $324 and the Ryzen 9 7900X at $398 – ship superior worth in gaming. Finally, the Core Extremely 265K is a stable CPU for multi-threaded duties. Nonetheless, if gaming is a precedence, you may discover higher choices elsewhere, particularly given the unfavourable opinions surrounding Intel’s Core Extremely collection. It’s a balanced alternative, nevertheless it lacks the punch and efficiency edge you may count on in its worth vary. Closing Phrase
[ad_2]