Question Anyone currently using an Intel Core Ultra 7 265K?

[Thunder 57]

The problem with your observation is not its accuracy, but rather its limited scope/myopia. For gaming builds, the Ryzen 9 vanilla series is never going to be a recommendation from anyone with a clue. It's the false dilemma fallacy; offering only those 2 options.

If we evaluate by the chosen metric of no bad products, it is indeed a bad price. It is an unusually bad product, because it is the only known generation for the socket. That makes standard value metrics insufficient to the task of judging arrow. As of today, there will be no faster gaming CPUs for the platform, and it isn't even previous generation flagship level. It's the quintessential example of an e-waste throwaway platform released because they had to offer something. Why anyone would rationalize arrow as anything other than a Bulldozer level failure is perplexing. Even then, Vishera brought 10-20% performance uplift* the next year (* = Anand's review). Arrow doesn't even have that going for it.

It does seem to draw some parallels to Williamette. Not necessary better than previous gen. Could be the only CPU for the socket (Socket 423 back then). Rushed because they needed something. At least it has some merit. It's not hot slow power hungry garbage like Williamette.

 

[CP5670]

Regarding boot times, Intel is faster if MCR is disabled on AMD, which is better for stability. But my old Intel 4790K/Z97 booted way, way faster than any modern PC, maybe 5 seconds. The UEFI bioses are just slow to boot across the board. If you always put the pc on sleep boot times don't matter much.

I agree that AMD is better at just about every price point now.

 

[dttprofessor]

I buy one ,not for game.

 

[SPBHM]

they seem like nice CPUs, but I struggle to find any good reasons to get them over AMD,
Intel needs to be aggressive with pricing since they don't have anything clear in terms of performance and power or platform, and the "brand" value of Intel is kind of gone.

 

[Hulk]

I have been building Intel systems for 30+ years as well and never had an AMD system. In the last few years I was reimbursed by Intel for both a 13900K and 14900K that had degraded. That and the fact that I was unable to adequately cool these CPU's in order to get the performance I was seeing in reviews led me seriously investigate AMD.

While there are specific tasks where ARL is quite performant, such as Machine Learning, Rendering, Media Encoding, and some Science Simulations, there are quite a few applications, such as gaming where ARL is slower than Raptor Lake and Zen 4 and 5. If you are looking for good value in the specific applications ARL does well than perhaps it's worth a try. I know you can get the 265K at MC for $300.

I thought long and hard on this but in the end I finally went with the 9950X and couldn't be happier. Here is what was running through my mind when I made my final decision. It literally took me months to come to this conclusion.

While ARL does perform well in some applications, Zen 5 is "right there" in those applications and far ahead in many others, especially gaming.

Power and heat are better with ARL compared to Raptor Lake, but Zen 5 is even better.

ARL is "end of road" as far as upgrades. AMD has already confirmed Zen 6 will be available for AM5. That's a nice "present" as you can just pop one in. 5 minutes and "Boom!" You're on the next generation.

I was concerned about software/hardware issues with AMD. After all Intel is the one that really know x86 right? Wrong, AMD knows it too. This 9950X is the most stable, issue-free rig to date that I've ever built.

I don't think it would be a mistake to try ARL. As I mentioned above there is some value in the 265K if you are looking specifically at the applications it is good at and realize you will be buying a new mobo if you need to upgrade to the next gen. Also, there is the curiousity factor of just wanting to check it out. I get it. That ran though my mind a lot. But in the end, as noted above there were just too many positives for AMD. After 5 successful generation of Zen they earned my purchase. Intel has some work to do in order to swing me back to their camp.

Brand loyalty is a tough trend to break. I don't know why but I guess after 30+ years I was just set in an Intel frame of mind. I'm happy I broke out and tried AMD as I am having a great experience.

 

[Josh128]

Obviously I missed the part where his build was for gaming-- I thought it was for general purpose use, lol. But indeed I was correct in its being price/perf competitive, even in games, with vanilla Zen 5 Ryzen 9 SKUs.

Explain how? DPUNISHER's post above pretty much shows otherwise.

Explain how not? Numbers dont lie.

 

[Markfw]

Explain how not? Numbers dont lie.

View attachment 114085

What does that chart represent ? $2.42 what ? 163 what ?????

 

[Josh128]

The problem with your observation is not its accuracy, but rather its limited scope/myopia. For gaming builds, the Ryzen 9 vanilla series is never going to be a recommendation from anyone with a clue. It's the false dilemma fallacy; offering only those 2 options.

If we evaluate by the chosen metric of no bad products, it is indeed a bad price. It is an unusually bad product, because it is the only known generation for the socket. That makes standard value metrics insufficient to the task of judging arrow. As of today, there will be no faster gaming CPUs for the platform, and it isn't even previous generation flagship level. It's the quintessential example of an e-waste throwaway platform released because they had to offer something. Why anyone would rationalize arrow as anything other than a Bulldozer level failure is perplexing. Even then, Vishera brought 10-20% performance uplift* the next year (* = Anand's review). Arrow doesn't even have that going for it.

Its not myopia if I missed the part where it was a gaming build, as I said.

265K is no more an unusually bad product at its price point than 9900X or 9950X. If it is, then they are as well. As I pointed out earlier, its a bit better than 9900X overall in MT, a bit worse in ST, a much better iGPU, similar in power efficiency, at a 13% discount in price. These are purely objective observations.

 

[Josh128]

What does that chart represent ? $2.42 what ? 163 what ?????

Scroll up a few posts to see the entire chart. Its gaming fps /dollar. My highlights are it vs the Ryzen 9 SKUs in gaming scenarios. Thunder 57 specifically questioned my statement about that. Its objectively better. Dont understand why the narrative is being twisted.

 

[Hitman928]

What does that chart represent ? $2.42 what ? 163 what ?????

163 is the average frame rate and $2.42 is the CPU cost divided by the average frame rate. The problem with ARL in terms of gaming isn't that it performs poorly across the board, but rather it performs competitively in some games but not competitively in others. So, taking the average smooths over some really rough performances where ARL falls on its face. Whether those cases matter to you (and if a future game you may want to play performs poorly) will depend on the individual person, but you should definitely look deeper than the average and this is especially true for ARL.

 

[Hitman928]

Its not myopia if I missed the part where it was a gaming build, as I said.

265K is no more an unusually bad product at its price point than 9900X or 9950X. If it is, then they are as well. As I pointed out earlier, its a bit better than 9900X overall in MT, a bit worse in ST, a much better iGPU, similar in power efficiency, at a 13% discount in price. These are purely objective observations.

Pretty much no one buys a 9900x or 9950x for gaming though, for that reason. Intel doesn't offer an ARL SKU that is competitive for gaming focused builds.

 

[Josh128]

163 is the average frame rate and $2.42 is the CPU cost divided by the average frame rate. The problem with ARL in terms of gaming isn't that it performs poorly across the board, but rather it performs competitively in some games but not competitively in others. So, taking the average smooths over some really rough performances where ARL falls on its face. Whether those cases matter to you (and if a future game you may want to play performs poorly) will depend on the individual person, but you should definitely look deeper than the average and this is especially true for ARL.

To reiterate, I wasnt advocating a 265K specifically for gaming. As I pointed out earlier, I thought the OP was looking for a general purpose build, I missed the gaming part. But indeed, at its price point, its a completely valid option for a general use build vs the Ryzen 9 Zen 5 SKUs. And while I agree with you that the gaming perf is "streaky" on average, which is a valid consideration, at least in HUBs testing, its still better perf/dollar than Ryzen 9 for gaming.

 

[Josh128]

Pretty much no one buys a 9900x or 9950x for gaming though, for that reason. Intel doesn't offer an ARL SKU that is competitive for gaming focused builds.

We are getting off in the weeds. People being too quick to try to pounce without reading what I said. I didnt recommend any of them specifically for gaming. I very clearly stated I missed the part where it was for a gaming build. What I did say though, was that for a general purpose build, which even includes some gaming (people like me with my 9900X do still exist) its as good or better a deal than Zen 5 Ryzen 9 series.

 

[Hitman928]

We are getting off in the weeds. People being too quick to try to pounce without reading what I said. I didnt recommend any of them specifically for gaming. I very clearly stated I missed the part where it was for a gaming build. What I did say though, was that for a general purpose build, which even includes some gaming (people like me with my 9900X do still exist) its as good or better a deal than Zen 5 Ryzen 9 series.

I disagree. It's more competitive for general builds but unless you do something specific where ARL shines, it doesn't really offer a SKU that gives most people a reason to purchase it, not at the current price points. Even for general builds with gaming on the side, why would you go with ARL where you might get significantly worse performance in some games versus a much more consistent performer? I do agree that ARL isn't a BD or P4 type product where it just gets blown out, but it doesn't really offer a reason to purchase it either outside of a couple of specific types of work loads it does well in.

 

[Hulk]

I just timed it. 15 seconds from power on to Windows lock screen.

 

[CP5670]

ARL is "end of road" as far as upgrades. AMD has already confirmed Zen 6 will be available for AM5. That's a nice "present" as you can just pop one in. 5 minutes and "Boom!" You're on the next generation.

This is a huge plus of AMD that you don't initially realize. Changing the board and platform drivers is far more work than just the CPU, and I would end up upgrading much less often on Intel to avoid this hassle. The 7800X3D to 9800X3D upgrade was done in a hour for me. In fact the last time I did a CPU upgrade alone was back in the early 2000s, also with AMD.

I just timed it. 15 seconds from power on to Windows lock screen.

Are you using MCR? It caused instability on the 7800X3D and I stopped using it, but have not tried it on the 9800X3D. It's more like 30 seconds without MCR.

 

[Hulk]

This is a huge plus of AMD that you don't initially realize. Changing the board and platform drivers is far more work than just the CPU, and I would end up upgrading much less often on Intel to avoid this hassle. The 7800X3D to 9800X3D upgrade was done in a hour for me. In fact the last time I did a CPU upgrade alone was back in the early 2000s, also with AMD.



Are you using MCR? It caused instability on the 7800X3D and I stopped using it, but have not tried it on the 9800X3D. It's more like 30 seconds without MCR.

What is MCR? I have everything auto in the BIOS, no tweaking other than turn on EXPO for my memory.

 

[gdansk]

What is MCR? I have everything auto in the BIOS, no tweaking other than turn on EXPO for my memory.

Memory context restore. Rather than retraining memory in each boot it uses the last settings (unless power was lost/unplugged).

Speeds up boot time and is default on boards with conservative training (Edit: apparently it is default on 9000 series)

 

[MarkPost]

This is a huge plus of AMD that you don't initially realize. Changing the board and platform drivers is far more work than just the CPU, and I would end up upgrading much less often on Intel to avoid this hassle. The 7800X3D to 9800X3D upgrade was done in a hour for me. In fact the last time I did a CPU upgrade alone was back in the early 2000s, also with AMD.



Are you using MCR? It caused instability on the 7800X3D and I stopped using it, but have not tried it on the 9800X3D. It's more like 30 seconds without MCR.

With 7xxx you need to set in BIOS "Power Down Enable" to "Enabled" if MCR is also enabled. So if MCR and PDE are both enabled = no issues. If MCR is enabled but PDE is disabled = bluescreen.

With 9xxx, AFAIK, this bug is solved. So with MCR enabled and PDE disabled = no issues

 

[MarkPost]

What is MCR? I have everything auto in the BIOS, no tweaking other than turn on EXPO for my memory.

yeah, with 9xxx, MCR is usually enabled by default (Auto = enabled)

 

[CP5670]

I can try turning it on, it was indeed enabled by default. But I get occasional warm boot post failures even with it turned off. I'm guessing it's due to the current MSI bios being a beta and will be fixed at some point, which happened for the 7 series.

 

[Mopetar]

What kind of GPU are you planning to use for this gaming rig? Unless you're aiming for a premium experience, it doesn't matter all that much.

Intel generally isn't the best choice right now, but for a a mid-range build it doesn't matter as much. Maybe pair it with a Battlemage GPU and let us know how it goes. It may not be the best, but I think it might be fun.

 

[MarkPost]

I can try turning it on, it was indeed enabled by default. But I get occasional warm boot post failures even with it turned off. I'm guessing it's due to the current MSI bios being a beta and will be fixed at some point, which happened for the 7 series.

well if those occasional warm boot failures also occur with MCR disabled, MCR isnt the issue there. Maybe a BIOS bug but a memory issue too. Have you checked memory stability? If not, you can test it with TestMem5 https://github.com/CoolCmd/TestMem5/releases/tag/v0.13.1

 

[CP5670]

I had the same issue for a long time on the 7800x3d until a bios update. The memory works fine after it's booted.

 

[lakedude]

And I have said countless times how false that is. Power supplies that catch fire and degrading CPU's are bad products.

Recalls wouldn't be a thing if there weren't bad/defective products.

Yes, agreed, however...

If someone is handy they may be able to modify a product or modify the way they use a product.

If a PS has bad caps (or other parts), those can be replaced.

RL can be run at conservative clocks and given a low enough price (free?) might represent a good value.

I don't personally want to fool around with either but if someone gave me say a system for free, I'd make it work.