Intel Core Ultra 7 265K CPU Review

Checked our review of the Intel Core Ultra 5 and looking for something a little more potent? The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a high-performance processor that sits near the top of Intel's new "Arrow Lake" lineup. It features a hybrid architecture with 8 Performance-cores and 12 Efficient-cores, it boasts a total of 20 cores and 20 threads, ready to tackle demanding workloads for gaming and content creation alike. With a boost clock speed reaching up to 5.5 GHz and a larger 30MB L3 cache compared to the Core Ultra 5, the 265K is geared towards enthusiasts and professionals who demand the best performance for gaming, content creation, and multitasking. One of the key highlights of the Core Ultra 7 265K is its integrated Intel Arc Xe2 Graphics (64EU). This powerful iGPU represents a significant upgrade over previous generations. With new AI-enhancing features, faster memory support, and increased cache sizes, the Core Ultra 7 seems like a compelling choice for any high-end system, especially for those who don't want to push their budgets higher for the flagship Core Ultra 9. Personally, I've always bought the i7 series, so the Core Ultra 7 is the one currently on my own radar for a system upgrade. Of course, there are a few new CPUs launching in this series, with the lower specification Core Ultra 5, and the higher spec flagship Core Ultra 9. As I said, the Core Ultra 7 is a bit of a sweet spot, offering high-end thrills without the added rendering capabilities you get from the higher core counts of the Core Ultra 9. Specifications Cores and Threads: 16 cores (8 performance-cores + 8 efficient-cores) with 32 threads. More cores than the Ultra 5, but fewer than the Ultra 9. Cache: 30 MB Intel Smart Cache. Again, positioned between the Ultra 5 and 9. Clock Speed: Up to 5.50 GHz, falling between the other two CPUs. Power: 125W base power and 221W maximum turbo power. Its power consumption is closer to the Ultra 5. Graphics: Integrated Intel UHD Graphics with 4 Xe-cores. Consistent with the rest of the lineup. AI: Intel AI Boost, like the others. Memory: Supports up to 192 GB of DDR5 6400 MT/s memory. No difference here. Socket: Requires the FCLGA1851 socket. Intel Core Ultra Series Intel's Core Ultra CPUs are here at last, marking a big change in the Intel naming structure, albeit not a particularly slick one. These are technically the 15th Gen Intel Core CPUs, but they're the first generation of the new Intel Core Ultra series! These processors codenamed "Arrow Lake-s" mark the debut of Intel's new nomenclature, replacing the familiar "i" series with the "Ultra" branding. This change signifies more than just a name update; it reflects a fundamental change in architecture and focus, a new starting point for future generations of CPUs, with the first gen having a significant focus on thermal performance and power efficiency for Intel to build upon. AI and Beyond One of the most prominent features of the Core Ultra series is its emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI). These CPUs are the first to feature a dedicated Neural Processing Unit (NPU), a specialized hardware component designed to accelerate AI tasks. This allows for significant performance gains in AI-powered applications, ranging from content creation and gaming to productivity and security. Intel claims that the Core Ultra CPUs deliver up to 50% faster performance in AI-enabled creator applications compared to competing processors. Power Consumption and TDP The new architecture features a hybrid design of performance cores (P-cores) and efficient cores (E-cores), similar to what we've seen on previous CPUs, which can deliver up to 14% faster multi-threaded performance compared to the previous generation. Additionally, Intel has achieved a 40% reduction in package power, which is great news, as the previous gens were notoriously power-hungry and had lofty cooling requirements. The Core Ultra series also introduces a new platform and socket (LGA1851), requiring users to upgrade their motherboards to accommodate these CPUs, which is why today we also have a series of new motherboard reviews for you to read. How We Test We continue to update our testing methods around once per year. As such, we re-test older hardware to reflect changes over time. These can be driver updates, Windows updates, game patches, and more; all of which have an impact on performance figures. Furthermore, we update our test benches to newer and more relevant hardware. This means that our new reviews aren’t always comparable to those of older reviews, so please compare the testing methodology on older reviews should you be trying to compare them with newer ones. Replicate Our Results When it comes to our benchmarks in our reviews, the benchmarks are pretty self-explanatory and are kept as simple as possible, although there are a few exceptions. Remember that your choice of a graphics card, CPU, the silicon lottery, and other factors can yield different numbers, and there’s always a margin for error when using any software. Links are provided below, as well as the settings we use. We encourage you to not just look at how one product compares to any other, but how it compares to your own. If you’re looking to build a new system, you should benchmark your current PC using the benchmarks available to you. You should then look at the percentage improvement from your current hardware to the hardware tested here to give you a ballpark figure of how much of an upgrade this will provide you with. Processor Test Systems Software We use a variety of software from different developers to assist in our testing and to give us the most consistent results possible. Some applications are specifically used for testing, while others are simply used for monitoring and to aid us in making sure that our results are as accurate as possible. Software Used 3DMark FireStrike & TimeSpy (download) AIDA64 (download) Blender 3.6.0 Classroom (download) CapFrameX 1.7.0 (download) Cinebench R23 (download) Corona 1.3 (download) CPU-Z (download) Geekbench 5 (download) Google Octane 2.0 (link) GPU-Z (download) HWMonitor (download) Keyshot Viewer 11.2.1 (download) Mozilla Kraken 1.1 (link) PCMark 10 Express (download) PugetBench For Davinci Resolve Super PI 2.1 WP (download) V-Ray 5.00.20 (download) WebXPRT 4 (link) Gaming To gauge performance levels which are easily reproduced time after time, by both ourselves and our readers, we now stick strictly to games default profiles. Given how powerful most modern cards are getting, we've began using more demanding profiles for most games, but will otherwise state on a per game basis if we use other profiles beyond High, Ultra, Maximum or their respective equivalent at all resolutions. V-Sync is always disabled in our testing, and all FPS caps that can be removed are. We also enable XMP and Resizable bar technology across all platforms to keep things as fair as possible. Games While we test a lot of games, it's not possible to display all of the data on the website or in our videos. Instead, we include access to all of our testing data for our Patreon members (link), where members get a ton of other benefits as well. What we do, however, is display charts for averages across all game titles to give a better picture of performance across all titles tested. A Plague Tale Requiem Aseetto Corsa Competizione Baldur's Gate 3 Cyberpunk 2077 F1 23 Hogwarts Legacy Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered Shadow of the Tomb Raider Starfield The Riftbreaker Resolutions 1080p (Full HD) Some tests will also include features such as NVIDIA DLSS and Ray Tracing. However, these will be clearly labelled and may only appear in reviews for graphics cards that support those features. Power Consumption Not being content on simply reading total system power draw at both idle and load, we now have the ability thanks to sensors built into the system to find the exact CPU package power draw during any one instance. We now check power draw during Cinebench R23 single and multi-core runs as well as during a set amount of games. Temperatures Temperatures are measured in a very similar way to power consumption and are taken during a Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core run, as well as during a set amount of games at the max levels seen. Synthetic Benchmarks Starting things off with the 3DMark CPU Profile benchmark and things are off to a good start. The U5 245K sees a healthy 11% increase in performance in single core and a pretty staggering 24% improvement in multi-core when compared to its predecessor, the 14600K. The U7 265K sees strong improvements too of 11% in single core and 19% in multi-core when compared to the 14700K, while the U9 285K flagship sees the strongest single core gain over the 14900K of 13%, and a 23% uplift in max threaded workloads. This also puts both the U9 and U7 ahead of the 9950X in both single-thread and max-thread results, so a good and strong start from Intel. In PCMark 10, not only are AMD storming ahead by quite a large margin to the tune of just under 17% from the 9950X, but the 9700X and 7950X also fair better, along with the complete 13th and 14th generation CPUs that we tested. When you have a 13600K i5 coming in with a stronger score than a Core Ultra 9 285K, then you know some performance has been left on the table, and optimisations should help dramatically, though it could all be down to hyperthreading now being eliminated, though I suspect it’s more of the former, than the latter. Rendering In Blender, we again see some strong gains across the board when comparing the new Core Ultra series to the 14th generation predecessors with a 12% uplift on the Core Ultra 5, 14% on the Core Ultra 7 and a 20% improvement with the Core Ultra 9. Compared to the competition, this again puts Intel ahead with the Core Ultra 9 when compared to the flagship 9950X, albeit only by 3% which is right on the cusp of margin of error. Cinebench 2024 showed strong performance across both single-core and multi-threaded workloads. The U5 saw an 8% uplift in single-threaded performance over the 14600K, along with an 11% improvement in the multi-core test. The U7 saw a smaller, but still healthy 6% increase over the last generation in single-threaded, and again, 11% in multi-threaded over the 14700K and the U9 saw a slightly better 13% in single-core and an impressive 17% uplift in multi-core, which also puts it ahead of AMD by 6% in single core and 16% ahead in multi-core, so it can now be argued that Intel hold the crown again for the best performance CPU, but we do need to look at games to see how that translates. In Corona, this time we’re looking for the lower the number the better, and AMD have this one sewn up coming in with the best result at 35 seconds, though Intel are only just behind on the 285K at 39 seconds. When looking at the previous generation, the CPUs to suffer somewhat here, coming in slower, which is likely down to the lack of hyperthreading, but optimisations through drivers and software development could see things improve, because while the U9 and 14900K are close, the U7 and U5 are separated quite dramatically from the processors they’re replacing. The stack is fairly predictable in Keyshot Viewer, the U9 sitting between the Ryzen 7 9950X and the 7950X. The Core U7 is sitting between the 13900K and the 14700K, while the Core U5 is just ahead of the i6 14600K, but overall it's clear that more cores is the key to success here. It's also basically the same story in V-Ray, with the three CPUs taking 2nd, 4th and 9th on the chart, but again they're about where we expected, with some small gains from the old to the new Intel CPUs. Calculation Geekbench 5 was, again, rather predictable in terms of how the U5, U7, and U9 stacked against each other, but what is surprising is how much the U9 leads the pack. It pulled an impressive lead, with the fastest AMD rival, the Ryzen 7 9950X, scoring 23766. That's giving Intel a more than 18% lead here, and even the Core U7 matched the performance of the older Core i9-14900K. The U5 did well though, beating the 14600K by a fair margin, and matching the performance of the Ryzen 9 7950X. We see AMD perform much better in Octact, but again the U9 dominates, the U7 is matching the 14900K again and the U5, while obviously slower, is on par with the Ryzen 9 7950X, but a little behind that of the i5 14600K, which is a small shame. The stack is a bit strange here, with the U7 coming in slower than the U5, albeit not by a huge margin. However, AMD clearly holds the lead here, however, there are clear improvements from the i5, i7 and i9 to the new U5, U7 and U9 processors. The loss of hyperthreading clearly isn't something that sits well with Super Pi, with all the new Intel CPUs falling way behind their last-generation counterparts and AMD rivals. I suspect this could be improved as the hardware matures, but I guess at the same time, you can't win them all. Here we see clear benefits though, with the U5 thrashing the i5 14600K by a huge margin, nearly halving the processing time in WPrime. The U7 and U9 are similarly massively quicker than their last-generation counterparts, although the AMD 7950X and 9950X clearly hold onto the fastest times in this test, by a fairly significant margin. We see another mixed bag in WebXPRT 4, with both the U5 and the U7 really struggling here, and only the brute-force power of the flagship U9 getting high on the charts, but still being put in its place by the 9950X and the 9700X yet again. Interestingly, all three of the new Intel CPUs are tightly packed together here in Y-Cruncher, this is a strange result, and the test is still dominated by the Ryzen CPUs, especially the 9950X and 9700X which are in a league of their own. However, look at the results again, and you'll see strong performance in single-core results from all three Intel CPUs, with even the i5 beating out the older 14600K by a few points. Memory This is a weird one, as it's clear that Intel absolutely dominated here in terms of read, write and copy performance, with the Core U5, U7 and U9 delivering some incredible performance form our kit, but this is counterpointed by higher latency. The higher latency could certainly explain away some of the calculation performance results, and if a BIOS update can address this latency issue, then I expect those wonky calculation results would see the full strength of these new CPUs unleashed. A Plague Tale Follow the grim tale of young Amicia and her little brother Hugo, in a heartrending journey through the darkest hours of history. Hunted by Inquisition soldiers and surrounded by unstoppable swarms of rats, Amicia and Hugo will come to know and trust each other. As they struggle to survive against overwhelming odds, they will fight to find purpose in this brutal, unforgiving world. Available now on Steam. Our first game up is A Plague Tale: Requiem where all 3 CPUs give us an uplift compared to the previous generation. The uplift on the U5 is the strongest at 8%, while as we move up the stack, it does taper off somewhat with a 6% improvement for the U7 265K, and a slightly lower, but still welcomed 5% on the U9, though with figures coming in nigh on identically, we are being held back somewhat. Something that didn’t seem to be a problem for AMD which already held a strong lead over the 14th gen, but now further improves that, with our best performance coming in from the 9950X, which sits around 8% faster than Intel’s newest offerings. Assetto Corsa Competizione Assetto Corsa Competizione is a racing simulation game developed by Kunos Simulazioni and published by 505 Games. It serves as the official game of the Blancpain GT Series. It provides a realistic driving experience with accurate models of GT3 cars, laser-scanned circuits, and an advanced physics engine. The game includes both single-player and multiplayer modes, featuring championships, customizable events, and competitive online races. Competizione is acclaimed for its realism, attention to detail, and immersiveness, making it a popular choice among sim racing enthusiasts. Available now on Steam. In Assetto Corsa, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. The U5 starts off strong with an 8% uplift in performance gen to gen, while the U7 actually sees a performance hit of 2% when moving up from the i7 14700K and the same 2% variance between the 14900K and new U9 285K and this further strengthens the lead to both the 9950X and that monstrous 7800X3D which takes the top spot by a hefty 22% over the 285K. Baldur's Gate 3 Baldur's Gate 3 is a critically acclaimed role-playing game developed and published by Larian Studios. Set in the Forgotten Realms of Dungeons & Dragons, it immerses players in a rich narrative where their choices significantly impact the story. The game features turn-based combat, deep character customization, and a vast world to explore, filled with memorable companions, challenging encounters, and intricate puzzles. With its stunning visuals, engaging story, and faithful adaptation of D&D's fifth edition ruleset, Baldur's Gate 3 has garnered widespread praise for delivering a truly immersive and unforgettable RPG experience. Available now on Steam. Baldur’s Gate is a game that is frankly a bit of a hot mess for the new series of CPUs and is a bit of a nightmare to test due to its inconsistencies anyway. What we find is that AMD lead the pack with the 7800X3D as expected, but even the 9950X holds a strong lead over the new lineup now, whereas before the 14900K was holding strong. What we see generation to generation is even worse for Intel with a 6% drop in performance on both the U5 and U7, and a pretty dismal 15% drop on the U9, though again, optimisations could help, but who knows when they’ll come into play. Cyberpunk 2077 Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure RPG set in the megalopolis of Night City, where you play as a cyberpunk mercenary wrapped up in a do-or-die fight for survival. Improved and featuring all-new free additional content, customize your character and playstyle as you take on jobs, build a reputation, and unlock upgrades. The relationships you forge and the choices you make will shape the story and the world around you. Legends are made here. What will yours be? Available now on Steam. Cyberpunk shows some pretty weak performance again with some sizeable drops in performance. All three CPUs come in very close to each other between 85 to 87 FPS, and this translates to between a 13% to 15% loss in performance. We further confirmed these losses with other media outlets in the industry who experienced exactly the same deficits, so again, I’m hopeful that optimisations can help, but that’s quite a big void to fill. F1 23 Be the last to brake in EA SPORTS™ F1® 23, the official video game of the 2023 FIA Formula One World Championship™. A new chapter in the thrilling "Braking Point" story mode delivers high-speed drama and heated rivalries. Available now on Steam. In F1 23, we’re always expecting AMD to do better than Intel as was the case with all generations before it, and AMD hold strong on the likes of the 7800X3D, 7950X and 9950X and sees the 9700X coming in within similar performance to the 285K U9 CPU which has seen a 9% improvement in performance over the 14900K, which is welcomed, along with the U7 sporting a similar 10% improvement over its predecessor. Sadly, the U5 suffers somewhat and actually loses performance, though we’re talking 1%, so margin of error rears its ugly head, so we’d class that one as identical. Hogwarts Legacy Hogwarts Legacy is an open-world action RPG set in the world first introduced in the Harry Potter books. Embark on a journey through familiar and new locations as you explore and discover magical beasts, customize your character and craft potions, master spell casting, upgrade talents and become the wizard you want to be. Experience Hogwarts in the 1800s. Your character is a student who holds the key to an ancient secret that threatens to tear the wizarding world apart. Make allies, battle Dark wizards, and ultimately decide the fate of the wizarding world. Your legacy is what you make of it. Live the Unwritten. Available now on Steam. In Hogwarts, the only CPU that gives us any performance improvement was the U5, which comes in with 3% higher frames than the 14600K, while the U7 and U9 both match their previous generation counterparts in the averages, though the U7 did sport a better 1% low when compared to the 14700K, though in comparison, this was quite a bit lower than the 13th generation 13700K, though the averages still show margin of error coming into play in places. Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered In Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered, the worlds of Peter Parker and Spider-Man collide in an original, action-packed story. Play as an experienced Peter Parker, fighting big crime and iconic villains in Marvel’s New York. Web-swing through vibrant neighbourhoods and defeat villains with epic takedowns. Available now on Steam. Next up is Spider-Man and again, the U5 gives us the biggest uplift of 14% over its predecessor, now coming in at 210 FPS which also matches that of the U7, which pushes another 7% performance over the 14700K. This uplift is also identical to what we now see from the U9 285K when comparing the data to the 14th gen flagship 14900K and it’s enough to see Intel hold the crown in this title, even when compared to the 7800X3D. Shadow of the Tomb Raider Experience Lara Croft’s defining moment as she becomes the Tomb Raider. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Lara must master a deadly jungle, overcome terrifying tombs, and persevere through her darkest hour. As she races to save the world from a Maya apocalypse, Lara will ultimately be forged into the Tomb Raider she is destined to be. Available now on Steam. Shadow Of The Tomb Raider is still a game that can really push the potential of different CPUs and while the 7800X3D takes the top spot at 288 frames per second, Intel do still manage to find a small amount of extra performance with this new lineup. For the U5, when compared to the 14600K, we now have 5% more frames being pushed to us, while the U7 sees that drop to just 3% when compared to the 14700K and then the U9 sees it increase again to 5% when comparing the data to the 14900K, and this is enough to take on AMD on all processors, minus the 7800X3D. Starfield Starfield is the first new universe in over 25 years from Bethesda Game Studios, the award-winning creators of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Fallout 4. In this next-generation role-playing game set amongst the stars, create any character you want and explore with unparalleled freedom as you embark on an epic journey to answer humanity’s greatest mystery. Available now on Steam. In Starfield, AMD holds strong, but Intel just had the edge with their last two generations, even when compared to the 7800X3D, but the new core Ultra improves on that even further. We now see a small 1% uplift on the U5 245K, while the U7 sees a stronger 5% improvement over the last generation equivalent, and the U9 285K takes the crown thanks to a 9% improvement over the 14900K, and this puts it 9% ahead of AMD’s best performing, in this title, 9950X. The Riftbreaker The Riftbreaker is a base-building, survival game with Action-RPG elements. You are an elite scientist/commando inside an advanced Mecha-Suit capable of dimensional rift travel. Hack & slash countless enemies. Build up your base, collect samples and research new inventions to survive. Available now on Steam. In our last test, which is admittedly one of the most CPU intensive games, it’s bad news for Intel across the board. Not only do all three of the new CPU lineup come in with identical performance, it’s some pretty stark drops compared to what we had before on 13th and 14th gen equivalents. The U5 for instance loses 10% performance moving up to this latest lineup, while the U7 sees that drop even further by 12% though our worse hit comes by way of the U9 where we lose a sizable 14% in performance, further cementing AMD’s lead over Intel, which was already strong when compared to Raptor Lake’s 14th generation. Power & Temperatures Now I said at the start that these CPUs are all about power and efficiency and that’s very much the case, because Intel have seemingly listened to the complaints set out by consumers when it came to the 14th gen, and mainly on the higher-end i9 parts. That’s why we measured power consumption at idle and during Cinebench, and also during gaming. It’s here where at idle, the new Core Ultra CPUs really excel due to their efficiency cores and how the architecture is working. We typically see figures around the 15 watts mark while sitting on the desktop, which is a significant improvement over the 14th generation and now also comes in much lower than anything AMD have to offer. During load, the U9 tops our chart, matching the power limit levels of the 14900K, 14700K, 13900K and 13700K but that’s expected anyway, while the U7 comes in just between the 7950X and 9950X and the U5 comes in closer matched to that of the 7700X. The total system power shows a slightly different story with the U9 coming in closer to its predecessor at idle, but nestled between the 9950X and 7950X during load, so a bit of a win there for Intel. The U7 and U5 match each other at idle, but are quite different at load with the U7 matching power with the 13600K and 14600K, so quite an achievement considering the extra performance, while the U5 is closer to that of the 7800X3D and below the 7700X, though the 9700X is still looking impressive here. In gaming and looking at the power and temperatures over an 8-game average, we find some significant improvements. Starting with the U9 which actually ended up using on average 79 watts less power than the i9 14900K, while the U7 came in using 61 Watts less on average compared to the 14700K, and then the U5 came in using 56 Watts less than the 14600K. This also puts all 3 of the new CPUs in a much better place compared to AMD’s 9950X, 7950X and you could argue, 7700X. In terms of temperatures, this is another area where things get pretty cool if you excuse the pun. The U9 285K now comes in 27 degrees lower than its predecessor, while the U7 265K comes in 26 degrees lower than the 14700K, and the U5 245K comes in 24 degrees lower, and this also means that all 3 of these CPUs come in cooler than anything AMD have to offer which while it doesn’t necessarily offer huge amounts of extra performance, it’s a great selling point for consumers. Now the real reason you’re likely here is gaming, so let's put the big focus on that, because that really comes down to a few things including game engines, utilisation, and how the game interacts with what instructions are on offer, and I think it’s clear to see that there is potentially performance left on the table that could be found through refinement by the game developers, mainly when you look at titles like Cyberpunk. Other games like Riftbreaker, well I think that’s a different story, because of the type of title it is, and how it interacts, I think the loss of hyperthreading and speed has taken a hit there. As always, to get a better idea as to what’s going on, it’s worth taking a look at the overall average FPS. It’s here where we find, well. Not much. The U5 245K comes in at 174 FPS on average across all ten games, compared to 172 FPS on the 14600K, which equates to just 1%, so retesting could see this come in even closer, so for the sake of being fair, we’ll call it identical. For the U7 265K, that too came in 2 FPS higher than its previous generation counterpart so again, 1% so neither here nor there. Then for the U9 285K we see no change when comparing to the 14900K as it comes in identically at 187 frames per second. When factoring in the cost of the CPUs, this results in a cost per frame of $1.78 for the U5 245K, $2.18 for the U7 265K and $3.14 for the U9 285K which are all higher than the 14th generation, but as always, this is based on the cost of these CPUs now, which are inflated somewhat due to them being new, compared to the 14th gen for instance, which has seen prices tumble since their launch. How this now compares to AMD is comparatively close to the likes of the 9950X, again being a new product when putting it against the U9, while the U7 is closer to the 7800X3D, though that comes in much higher in the average FPS. Then the U5 is comparable to the 9700X which offers up slightly more performance, but comes in slightly higher in overall cost. How Much Does it Cost? The new CPUs are the latest flagships for the Intel range, and obviously their performance, features and core counts are reflected in the price tags. The Intel Core U5 245K is the cheapest of the bunch that we've tested today, coming in at just $309/£278.99. The faster Intel Core U7 265K is a little more expensive at $394.00, and of course, the flagship Intel Core U9 285K is the most expensive at $589.00. However, I do think the price gap is quite a leap to the i9, but no doubt more CPUs will hit the market to fill out the pricing stacks, below and in between these CPUs. You can check for up-to-date stock and prices from Scan.co.uk here. Conclusion Intel has made a lot of changes to these new CPUs, but they're still not a huge departure from the previous generation in terms of performance, at least, not yet. Firstly, Intel is seemingly calling this the first generation of Intel Core Ultra rather than the 15th Generation of the i-series processors; however, it is true that they are, in fact, both of these things. A new beginning if you will, but one that feels rather familiar. HyperThreading A significant shift in CPU architecture is the absence of HyperThreading, a technology that had become standard in CPU design. This change has led to varied performance outcomes. While some software remains unaffected, others show a noticeable performance dip. However, this is likely a temporary situation. As software developers adapt their code to optimize for CPUs without HyperThreading, either through simple updates or more extensive revisions, the impact should lessen over time. This trend is mirrored in the gaming world, where certain titles, like Cyberpunk, experienced performance hiccups, while others ran smoothly. It's expected that future software patches will address these issues, and I anticipate revisiting performance benchmarks after these updates are implemented. Increased Cost There's definitely some woes here, as upgrading to this generation is going to be expensive. It's not just the CPU price, but the introduction new chipset and socket means a new motherboard, and the need for new high-speed DDR5 memory to take full advantage of it. While previous generations could use more affordable DDR5-7600, this one needs DDR5-8200 for optimal performance, which can double the memory cost compared to a typical DDR5-7200 kit. This means investing in these new CPUs is going to get pretty expensive, and may put off some customers outside of the enthusiast PC users as they'll often go to any lengths for the latest technology, but your average consumer is still likely to be tempted by the 14th Gen of Intel hardware. First Gen First Gen Intel Core Ultra CPUs are really what 14th Gen should have been, and while they give similar performance in many tests, some a bit faster or slower, the more refined power delivery is a big step up, resulting in lower power usage, and lower temperatures and that's going to make both cooling requirements easier, as well as high-end performance stability much easier, as you can push boost clocks without the rigorous cooling demands of the 14th Gen hardware. Intel even said in their own press briefing that we should think of this as a fresh starting point for the future. Building a base of efficiency, fast I/O and faster memory is a great place to start, there's no doubt about that. Retesting? We've had no end of troubles with testing, but largely it doesn't seem to be Intel's fault. The review testing started the same week Windows rolled out its latest update, which just didn't sit well with Intel's new metal, but we rolled back, and things improved greatly. As with any launch, BIOS updates, software updates, and Windows updates will no doubt improve things a lot, and I really feel that while performance was decent on this U7, there is still performance left on the table, and I look forward to seeing what comes up when we re-test in the coming weeks. Should I Buy One? There's a lot different about the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K CPU compared to the previous 14th Gen CPUs, but largely, they sum up to a fairly similar experience in our benchmarks. There are obvious benefits from the improved I/O of the new chipsets, and the faster memory we're using has its own benefits too. However, when it comes to leveraging the AI features, improved power delivery and thermal performance, I think this CPU still has more to give, and if I was investing in a brand new PC, I would likely pick up the 265K myself over the 14th Gen, but again, the added cost may not be to everyone's taste until the platform matures.