The video reviews the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, highlighting its decent performance in productivity tasks but underwhelming gaming capabilities compared to the Core i7 14700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Despite some strengths in benchmarks, the 265K’s overall value is questioned due to its slower gaming performance and power consumption relative to its competitors.
In the video, the host reviews the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, which is positioned as the successor to the Core i7 14700K. The video begins with an overview of the specifications of the 265K, noting that it features eight performance cores (P-cores) and twelve efficiency cores (E-cores), totaling 30MB of L3 cache and 36MB of L2 cache. The P-cores have a base frequency of 3.9 GHz and can boost to 5.5 GHz, while the E-cores operate at a base of 3.3 GHz and can reach 4.6 GHz. The 265K has a thermal design power (TDP) of 125 watts, with a maximum turbo power of 250 watts, and is priced at $395 per 1,000 units.
The video then transitions into benchmarking results, showcasing the performance of the 265K under load. Using the MSI MAG Core Liquid i360 cooler, the CPU achieved average clock frequencies of 4.6 GHz for E-cores and 5.2 GHz for P-cores while staying within the power limit. In Cinebench multicore tests, the 265K scored about 2,200 points, outperforming the 14700K by 8%. However, it lagged behind in file compression and decompression tests, showing a 6% and 15% performance drop compared to the 14700K, respectively. The 265K did perform well in Blender and other productivity benchmarks, indicating some strengths in non-gaming workloads.
When the video shifts focus to gaming performance, the results are less favorable for the 265K. In titles like Star Wars Jedi Survivor and Cyberpunk 2077, the 265K underperformed compared to both the 14700K and competing AMD processors. While it showed some competitive scores in The Last of Us Part One, it generally struggled to keep up, leading to disappointing results across multiple games. The gaming benchmarks highlighted a significant gap in performance compared to AMD’s Ryzen 7 7800X3D, which offered superior gaming experiences.
The host also discusses power consumption, noting that while the 265K is more power-efficient than previous Intel models, it still does not match the efficiency of AMD’s offerings. In gaming scenarios, the 265K consumed comparable power to the 9900X but delivered lower performance. The overall gaming performance averaged 8% slower than the 14700K and 4% slower than the 9900X, raising concerns about its competitiveness in the gaming market. The video emphasizes that the value proposition of the 265K is diminished when considering its performance relative to both Intel’s previous generation and AMD’s current lineup.
In conclusion, the video presents a critical view of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, suggesting that while it excels in certain productivity tasks, its gaming performance is underwhelming, especially in comparison to AMD’s offerings. The host expresses skepticism about Intel’s ability to improve the 265K’s gaming performance significantly, indicating that it may not be a viable option for gamers seeking a balanced CPU. The video ends with a call for viewer engagement and an invitation to join the channel’s community for more content and discussions.