Core Ultra 7 265F vs Core Ultra 7 265
Core Ultra 7 265F
Core Ultra 7 265
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core Ultra 7 265F
Performance Per Dollar Core Ultra 7 265
Why is Core Ultra 7 265 better than Core Ultra 7 265F?
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and the Core Ultra 7 265F are nearly identical processors within the Arrow Lake family, sharing the same 20-core architecture (8 Performance-cores and 12 Efficient-cores) and a maximum turbo frequency of 5.3 GHz. The critical difference is that the "F" variant lacks integrated Intel Xe graphics, making a dedicated graphics card an absolute requirement for any display output.
In terms of performance, both CPUs deliver top-tier productivity and gaming results. Since Intel has removed Hyperthreading in this generation, both chips feature a 20-thread configuration that excels in multi-core efficiency and single-core burst speeds. They are ideal for high-end gaming and intensive content creation, offering support for PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-6400 memory on the LGA 1851 socket.
Choosing between them depends on your specific needs: the Core Ultra 7 265F is typically more affordable and is the better value for gamers who already have a high-performance GPU. However, the standard Core Ultra 7 265 provides the added fallback of integrated graphics, which is invaluable for system troubleshooting or using Intel QuickSync for video encoding workflows.
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | Balanced gaming performance | Balanced gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($276) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($320) |
| Longevity | ✨ Modern (Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) / 3 nm) | ✨ Modern (Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) / 3 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+15%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($276) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($320) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 265F and Core Ultra 7 265
Core Ultra 7 265F
The Core Ultra 7 265F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,161 points. Launch price was $379.
Core Ultra 7 265
The Core Ultra 7 265 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 5.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 49,666 points. Launch price was $394.
Processing Power
Both the Core Ultra 7 265F and Core Ultra 7 265 share an identical 20-core/20-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). Both are built on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture using a 3 nm process. In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 49,161 against the Core Ultra 7 265's 49,666 — a 1% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265. Both processors carry 30 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 20 / 20 |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 30 MB (total) | 30 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| Process | 3 nm | 3 nm |
| Architecture | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 49,161 | 49,666+1% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 25,459 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 3,000 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 20,000 | — |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the LGA1851 socket with PCIe 5.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 6400 on the Core Ultra 7 265 — the Core Ultra 7 265 supports 199.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 256 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 24 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F) and Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 7 265).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1851 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400 | 6400+127900% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 256 GB+104857500% | 256 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 24 |
Advanced Features
Only the Core Ultra 7 265F has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Core Ultra 7 265 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes integrated graphics (Intel Arc Graphics), while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming. Direct competitor: Core Ultra 7 265 rivals Ryzen 7 9700X.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | None | Intel Arc Graphics |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | High Performance Gaming | — |
Value Analysis
The Core Ultra 7 265F launched at $369 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 265 debuted at $384. At current prices ($276 vs $320), the Core Ultra 7 265F is $44 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 265F delivers 178.1 pts/$ vs 155.2 pts/$ for the Core Ultra 7 265 — making the Core Ultra 7 265F the 13.7% better value option.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265F | Core Ultra 7 265 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $369-4% | $384 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $276-14% | $320 |
| Performance per Dollar | 178.1+15% | 155.2 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2025 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core Ultra 7 265F and Core Ultra 7 265
