• AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

  Cool and collected

  Cores

  8

  Threads

  16

  Architecture

  Zen 5

  Process

  TSMC 4nm, 6nm

  Socket

  AM5

  Base Clock Speed

  3.8 GHz

  The Ryzen 7 9700X is an astonishingly powerful CPU, which manages to post high benchmark scores while only sipping power. The new 105W mode can get another 10% of performance out of it, which makes it a compelling value proposition over the more expensive Core Ultra 7 265K.

  Pros & Cons

  • 65W TDP or new 105W performance mode
  • Plenty of single-core and multi-core performance
  • Beats the Ultra Core 7 265K in gaming loads

  • Beaten in synthetic or productivity benchmarks
  • DDR5 RAM support depends on motherboard chipset

  $360 at Newegg $259 at Amazon

• Intel Core Ultra 7 265K

  Maybe wait until the bugs get ironed out

  Cores

  8P / 12E

  Threads

  20

  Architecture

  Arrow Lake

  Process

  TSMC N3B

  Socket

  LGA 1851

  Base Clock Speed

  3.9 GHz / 3.3 GHz

  The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores for plenty of computing power, but while its performance is good in synthetic workloads, it's beaten out by the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X in gaming scenarios.

  Pros & Cons

  • Lower power usage than previous gen (but still beaten by the Ryzen 9700X)
  • Excellent DDR5 RAM support for high-speeds
  • Beats the Ryzen 7 9700X in synthetic benchmarks

  • Can't match the Ryzen 9700X in gaming loads
  • Weird teething issues from the new platform

  $410 at Newegg $410 at B&H

The yearly releases for Intel and AMD are almost done, with Arrow Lake receiving a lukewarm reception due to a mix of software and hardware snafus. AMD's 9000 series didn't fare much better, as while the CPUs are efficient and decently priced, they don't bring that much more performance than the previous generation. With this year being a reset of sorts in favor of more efficient CPUs, let's take a closer look at the two midrange CPUs, the Core Ultra 7 265K and Ryzen 7 9700X, to see which one is going to take the crown.

Price, specs, and availability

Different in every way

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X launched in August 2024 with an MSRP of $359. It is often found on sale, with the current price hovering around $325. It has eight cores, sixteen threads, 40MB of cache, base and boost speeds of 3.8GHz and 5.5GHz, and a 65W TDP. AMD recently added support for 105W TDP, which boosts performance somewhat at the expense of added heat. All of its cores are exactly the same, and it comes with PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 support with a basic Radeon iGPU for video output, handy for troubleshooting but not much else.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K was launched on October 24, 2024, with a "recommended customer price" of between $394 and $404. This 20-core CPU has 8 P-cores and 12 E-cores, all of which don't have hyperthreading, so you get a total of 20 threads. These cores can boost to 5.4GHz and 4.6GHz, respectively, and a 250W TDP at full boost. It's also got 30MB of L3 cache and 36MB of L2 cache, which should make it good for gaming PCs.

• 	Intel Core Ultra 7 265K	AMD Ryzen 7 9700X
  Socket	LGA 1851	AM5
  Cores	8P / 12E	8
  Threads	20	16
  Base Clock Speed	3.9 GHz / 3.3 GHz	3.8 GHz
  Boost Clock Speed	5.4 GHz / 4.6 GHz	5.5 GHz
  PCIe	5.0	5.0
  Cache	30MB L3 + 36MB L2	40 MB
  RAM support	DDR5-6400	DDR5-6000
  Graphics	Intel Graphics	AMD Radeon Graphics (2 cores)
  Architecture	Arrow Lake	Zen 5
  Process	TSMC N3B	TSMC 4nm, 6nm
  TDP	125 W	65W
  Price (MSRP)	$400	$359

Gaming and performance

What should you expect to see from these two CPUs?

While the Core Ultra 7 265K and Ryzen 7 9700X were designed to be more efficient, with a node shrink and better performance per watt, does that mean they're not very good at gaming or productivity tasks like you'd want your CPU to be? With a total of 20 cores, you'd think the Core Ultra 7 265K would run away with this comparison compared to the relatively low 8-cores and 16-threads of the Ryzen 7 9700X, but AMD's SMT (their version of hyperthreading) is incredibly efficient on Ryzen and nearly gives 1:1 performance on those virtual cores.

Synthetic benchmarks like Geekbench 6 show the Core Ultra 7 265K losing out slightly in single-core workloads, but running away with multi-core ones thanks to the four extra cores. Interestingly, with Intel dropping hyperthreading this generation, core scaling is very linear, and both of these CPUs would be evenly matched if the core count was equal. Some benchmarks show one or the other ahead, but it's a close-run race.

As for gaming, while either of these CPUs will be excellent with an equally capable graphics card, the Ryzen 7 9700X is ahead overall. A few titles like Cyberpunk 2077 have the Intel chip in the lead, possibly showing the advantage of the extra four cores on more demanding titles, but otherwise, it's behind, which isn't where Intel likes to be in gaming at all. It's entirely possible Intel will catch up, as there are some funky things going on with the Windows scheduler and other things that can likely be fixed in software, but at the minute, the more expensive chip is losing out.

Efficiency and thermals

Both going in the right direction

Now is the time for some good news for chip and also for CPU cooler manufacturers. Both the Ryzen 7 9700X and Intel Core Ultra 7 265K are more efficient than the previous generation. That means lower temperatures overall at load, with the Core Ultra 7 265K not breaking 94C under the capable be quiet! Dark Rock 5 cooler while gaming, and showed a 52.6C delta over ambient during multicore testing. The Ryzen 7 9700X beats this handily, with a 40.7C delta over ambient, but either way, these chips are a far cry from the hot processors from the generations before.

The Ryzen 7 9700X also takes the efficiency crown, as it gets these astonishing benchmark scores while only drawing 87.9W of package draw. The Core Ultra 7 265K in comparison, pulls 244W in total in the same test, which is only 12W lower than we measured the Intel Core i9-14900K at. There are also some odd transient dips in the power consumption during Cinebench runs with the Core Ultra chip, which could be thermal prevention or possibly related to the scheduler issues we mentioned earlier.

Should you buy the Core Ultra 7 265K or the Ryzen 7 9700X?

They're good at different things but mostly similar overall

While both of these CPUs have pretty good results overall, only one can win, and the relative stability and efficiency of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is going to be my pick. The Intel Core Ultra (Gen 2) release has been a little bit messy, with issues reminiscent of the Zen 1 launch in 2017, when Ryzen CPUs with their chiplet design arrived. If anything, this shouldn't be a damning indictment of Intel, because this is their first chiplet design for desktop use, and I'm confident they'll fix the teething issues.

But, until then, the Ryzen 7 9700X is the better pick for gaming, not far behind on productivity, and will absolutely sip power with its 65W TDP. If you already have a Ryzen 7000 processor, you can also skip upgrading, as you're not gaining much except for efficiency. But for anyone with a CPU that's a few years old, this is the one to get. With that in mind, you'll probably need to upgrade to DDR5 RAM, and also to an AM5 motherboard, so the total cost of ownership for either of these CPUs is fairly similar.

The other side of the coin is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, which drops hyperthreading. It's one thread per physical core now, but it doesn't seem to be the worst for wear because of the change. You'll need a new motherboard if you decide to go for Team Blue, with the Z890 chipset being the only available option currently until the midrange chipset arrives later this year. It's got good performance per watt, which adds up to good productivity scores and benchmarks, but is slightly behind on gaming loads. There's a chance that will change as microcode and software improvements come down the line, but as it stands, the Ryzen 7 9700X is the better value for most.