The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K marks the culmination of Intel’s latest Arrow Lake CPU reviews, offering a blend of performance and efficiency across gaming and professional workloads. With an 8P+12E core configuration, LGA 1851 socket compatibility, and a 125W design, this processor meets the demands of users who balance heavy-duty applications with modern gaming.
Rather than dissect every micron of its architecture, we will focus on the key data, charts, and comparisons you need to decide whether the 265K deserves a spot in your next desktop build.
CPU Price Comparison
At launch, the Core Ultra 7 265K carries a street price of $444 on Newegg and Amazon, positioning it squarely between the $630 285K and the $320–$330 245K models. It competes directly against AMD’s Ryzen 7 7800X3D at $480 and Intel’s 14th-gen parts—namely, the 14700K at $350 and the 13700K at $290. AMD also plans to introduce the Ryzen 7 9800X3D on November 7, although pricing remains unconfirmed; expectations place it alongside or above the 7800X3D’s $480 tag.
Notably, Arrow Lake requires the whole new Z890 platform, which requires LGA 1851 motherboards, which are among the most expensive in its class. While you gain efficiency benefits—lower cooler requirements and reduced power draw compared to previous Intel generations—you must absorb higher motherboard and memory speed costs that could outweigh the CPU savings.
Efficiency: 7 Zip Compression
Our 7-Zip compression efficiency test, measuring throughput on the ATX 12V and EPS 12V rails, places the 265K at a 163W draw for 968 mips/W. The 285K edges it out slightly—162W and 1,051 mips/W—thanks to its higher raw throughput. In fact, AMD’s 7800X3D, 7700, and even the six year old 3700X top the 265K’s result, leaving Intel’s new part only ahead of the 950X and previous generations’ midrange chips.
Efficiency: 7 Zip Decompression
In decompression, the 265K repeats its ranking: it draws the same power but achieves only 949 mips/W compared to the 285K’s 1051 mips/W. While it bests the 14700K by a solid margin (47% uplift), the CPU remains in AMD territory’s shadow, where the 7800X3D leads by 87%, and even the 9700X outperforms with 1624mips/W. The only Intel parts it definitively surpasses are its storied predecessors, the likes of the 950X and 5800X.
Efficiency: Baldur’s Gate 3
Exploring gaming efficiency in Baldur’s Gate 3, the 265K pulls 89W for a tied result with the 285K when rounded at 1.3fps/W. Although calibration issues initially showed a 10W discrepancy, subsequent V Core and power rail adjustments harmonized the data. Nevertheless, AMD’s 7800X3D and 5700X3D both achieve higher frame rates at lower wattage, translating to greater efficiency. The 245K also surpasses the 265K in this title, achieving 1.3 fps/W on its own and tying with Intel’s 9700X and 7700.
Efficiency: Final Fantasy XIV Dawntrail
In Final Fantasy XIV Dawntrail, calibrated tests record the 265K at 65W on the primary rails. Although comparable to the 285K, the 265K’s lower frame rates drop their efficiency below that of the 245K’s 4.3fps/W. AMD again dominates, with the 7800X2D delivering 8.3fps/W—an astonishing 131% improvement over the 265K, thanks to steep power savings coupled with higher frame rates.
Efficiency: Stellaris
Stellaris simulation benchmarks place the 265K at 1.5 simulations/W, matching AMD’s 5800X within rounding error. Intel’s 14700K improves over the 265K by 50%, while AMD’s 9600X registers 1.7 simulations/W. The 285K narrows the gap here, but it remains a mid chart performer behind Zen 5 options.
Efficiency: Starfield
Although we couldn’t capture 245K power data for Starfield, the 265K draws 144W—on par with the 285K—but suffers lower performance, resulting in worse efficiency. It matches the 14600 K’s 0.6fps/W improvement over the 14700K but fails to challenge the memory boosted 7800X2D at the top.
Dragon’s Dogma 2 CPU Gaming Benchmarks
Dragon’s Dogma 2 gaming averages show the 265K at 99fps, trailing the 285K by 4–5fps. Intel’s 14700K leads by 88.6%, the 13700K ties it, and AMD’s 7800X3D sits 11% ahead. Even older AMD 5700X3D on a cheaper platform surpasses the 265K, making it a poor value compared to sub $300 alternatives.
F1 24 Best Gaming CPUs
In F1 24, the 265K delivers a 7.5% uplift over the 245K, tying it with the AMD 7700X and eventually matching the 7900X in performance and price. However, at $630, the 285K remains an outrageous buy, consistently outperforming by $230 5700X3D or $480 7800X3D parts.
F1 24 1440p Benchmarks
Switching to 1440p results in slight performance drops, but the hierarchy maintains the 265K slots between the 14600K and 13600K. External bottlenecks occasionally cap the chart’s top, but the story remains unchanged: AMD leads, and Intel plays catch up.
Final Fantasy XIV Dawntrail at 1080p
At 1080p in Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail, AMD locks the top three spots. The 265K posts 236fps, trailing the 12900 K by 4% and the Ryzen 9 7900NX by 7.4%. The 14700K’s 287fps crushes it by 21.7%, confirming Arrow Lake’s regression in select titles first noted by Intel itself.
Baldur’s Gate 3: Intel 265K vs AMD 5700X3D
Comparing the 265K to the 5700X3D in Baldur’s Gate 3 shows a 96fps average for the Intel chip, tying the 12900K but only outpacing the 245K by a few frames. The 14700K leads by 6%, the 7800X2D by 32%, and the 5800X2D by 25%, further cementing AMD’s gaming dominance.
Stellaris Simulation Time Benchmarks
Stellaris late game save tests record the 265K at 33.9s simulation time versus the 3900K’s 33.5s. Intel’s 14700K and 14900K shave off 2%, while AMD’s Zen 5 parts—including the 9700X—take the crown.
Rainbow Six Siege Benchmarks
In Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, the 265K averages 519fps, with AMD’s 7800X leading by 20% and the 9600X by 19%. The 14900K with APO off edges it by 133%, and the 285K trails by 12%. Even the 7900X, not marketed as a gaming SKU, outperforms it.
Starfield CPU Benchmarks
Starfield tests show the 265K at 134fps, ahead of the AMD 5800X2 but behind the 13700K and 14700K, which hit motherboard or memory limits with DDR5-8600. The 7800X2D’s cache boosts it to the top yet again.
Blender 3D Rendering CPU Benchmarks
In Blender’s 3D render, the 265K completes the task in 8.7min—8% faster than the 14700K predecessor and 20% faster than the 13700K. AMD’s 7950X in eco mode still finishes 8% quicker at 7.4min, while the 7800X lags just behind the 285K.
7 Zip File Compression CPU Testing
Compression throughput places the 265K at 158,000 MIPS, neck-and-neck with AMD’s 9700X and 3.5% behind the 9900X. Upgrading to DDR5-8600 in the 285K test suggests further gains worth exploring.
7 Zip File Decompression Comparison
Decompression yields 168,000 MIPS for the 265K, placing it just behind the refreshed 14700K’s 195,000 MIPS. Even memory tweaks can’t leapfrog Intel past AMD’s production focused 7800X or the more affordable 7900, both of which lead by 24–27%.
Adobe Premiere Video Editing CPU Benchmarks
In Adobe Premiere with the PugetBench suite, the 265K scores 10,718 points, matching the 7600X eco mode and 9900X. It edges the 7900X by 8% and ties the 13700 K but falls 2.4% behind the 14700K. Surprisingly, the 285K bests the 14900K by 5.8% here.
Value-Proposition
Across our suite of efficiency, gaming, and production tests, the Core Ultra 7 265K navigates a crowded field of strong contenders. It outperforms Intel’s 14th gen predecessors in threaded workloads and delivers modest efficiency gains over the 245K.
However, AMD consistently leads in both efficiency and value, with X3D and X2D parts dominating gaming charts and Zen 4/5 silicon excelling in production tasks. The 285K remains an overpriced gaming flop, while the 245K fails to justify its mainstream positioning.
The 265K finds limited footing in mixed workload scenarios—especially if you split time between workstation apps and games—but yields no sweeping recommendation. If your priority is gaming, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D or 5700X3D remains the default choice.
For workstation use, consider AMD’s production oriented CPUs or older Intel parts with falling street prices. Ultimately, Arrow Lake introduces intriguing efficiency improvements, but Intel still has ground to cover before it offers a clear-cut reason to choose these new CPUs.
Check Our Other Intel Chips Articles:
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review And Performance Breakdown (2025)
- Intel Core Ultra 9 285K vs AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: In-Depth Gaming Performance and Benchmark Comparison
- Intel Core i5-13400F Gaming Performance: Still Worth It in 2025?
- Intel Core i9‑14900K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D: Power Profiles & Gaming Benchmarks
- Intel Core i9 14900K: Specs, Benchmarks, and Competitor Comparison
- Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review: Gaming, Productivity & Power Efficiency Tested
