Core Ultra 7 265HX vs Core Ultra 7 265F
Core Ultra 7 265HX
Core Ultra 7 265F
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 265HX
Performance Per Dollar Core Ultra 7 265F
Why is Core Ultra 7 265F better than Core Ultra 7 265HX?
Comparing the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (Desktop) and the Core Ultra 7 265HX (Mobile) reveals the classic performance gap between desktop and laptop hardware, despite sharing the same name and 20-core (8P + 12E) architecture. The desktop 265F operates with significantly higher power limits, featuring a Maximum Turbo Power of 182W compared to the mobile 265HX's 160W. This translates to better sustained clock speeds and superior performance in long-running tasks like video rendering or intense gaming sessions.
While both processors boost up to 5.3 GHz, the desktop environment allows the 265F to remain at high frequencies for much longer without thermal throttling. In contrast, the 265HX is limited by the cooling capacity and power delivery systems of high-end gaming notebooks. Furthermore, the "F" suffix on the desktop model indicates the lack of integrated graphics, which is standard for most high-end gaming desktops using a discrete GPU.
For users building a workstation or gaming PC, the Core Ultra 7 265F provides higher peak performance and better long-term scalability. However, for those requiring a mobile powerhouse, the 265HX is one of the fastest mobile processors available in 2025, offering near-desktop levels of performance in a portable form factor for elite gaming laptops.
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($450) | ✅ More affordable ($276) |
| Longevity | ✨ Modern (Arrow Lake-HX (2025) / 3 nm) | ✨ Modern (Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) / 3 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+64%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($450) | ✅ More affordable ($276) |
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 265HX and Core Ultra 7 265F
Core Ultra 7 265HX
The Core Ultra 7 265HX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2025-01-01. It is based on the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture. It features 20 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 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: FCBGA2114. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 48,975 points. Launch price was $500.
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.
Processing Power
Both the Core Ultra 7 265HX and Core Ultra 7 265F share an identical 20-core/20-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265HX versus 5.3 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 265F — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX (2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) (3 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 48,975 against the Core Ultra 7 265F's 49,161 — a 0.4% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,990 vs 3,000, a 0.3% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 17,417 vs 20,000 (13.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F). Both processors carry 30 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 20 | 20 / 20 |
| Boost Clock | 5.3 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.6 GHz+8% | 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-HX (2025) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| PassMark | 48,975 | 49,161 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 25,459 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,990 | 3,000 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 17,417 | 20,000+15% |
Memory & Platform
The Core Ultra 7 265HX uses the FCBGA2114 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses LGA1851 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6400 memory speed. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 192 GB — 28.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) vs 24 (Core Ultra 7 265F) — the Core Ultra 7 265F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: WM880,HM870 (Core Ultra 7 265HX) and Z890,B860,H810 (Core Ultra 7 265F).
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA2114 | LGA1851 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 5.0 | PCIe 5.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-6400 | DDR5-6400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 192 GB | 256 GB+33% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 24+20% |
Advanced Features
Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Only the Core Ultra 7 265HX supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. The Core Ultra 7 265HX includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU), while the Core Ultra 7 265F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core Ultra 7 265F targets High Performance Gaming.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU | None |
| Unlocked | Yes | Yes |
| AVX-512 | Yes | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | — | High Performance Gaming |
Value Analysis
The Core Ultra 7 265HX launched at $450 MSRP, while the Core Ultra 7 265F debuted at $369.
| Feature | Core Ultra 7 265HX | Core Ultra 7 265F |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $450 | $369-18% |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $276 |
| 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 265HX and Core Ultra 7 265F
