OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core Ultra 7 265 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£270PassMark multi-core score:49326N. of physical cores:20CPU boost clock speed:5.3 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core Ultra 7 265
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 90% of models
Score components

40%

8.7

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 90% of processors
8.2

Value for money

Value for money
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

★Better than 93%
8.7

Technical score

Technical score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components

60%

9.1

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.8

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

★Better than 98%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-ultra-7-265
  • intel-core-ultra-7-265
intel-core-ultra-7-265
intel-core-ultra-7-265
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 7 265

Technical score
Technical score
8.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 98% of models
Score components:

60%

9.1

Performance

18%

8.2

Architecture

10%

9.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.8

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

8.7
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

9.1

Price

8.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
This processor supports Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 90.6% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 64% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
20
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 20 CPU cores, which is more than 95.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.3 GHz which is higher than that of 91.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.4 GHz & 12x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 91.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
49,326
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 49,326 in PassMark, which is higher than 95.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
30 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 30 MB which is larger than that of 86.9% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L2 cache
36 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
L1 cache
2048 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2048 KB which is larger than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 84.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.7% of processors and equal to 1.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
182 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 182 W which is higher than that of 90.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 7 265 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,861 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,861 vs 5,209
  • 4.3x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (49,326 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    49,326 vs 11,469
  • 14 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 81.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,639 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,639 vs 2,558
  • 5.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (14,147 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    14,147 vs 2,804.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 99.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,063 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,063 vs 1,535
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 13% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has better value for money than the average processor (8.23 vs 7.3).
    8.23 vs 7.29
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP5).
    LGA1851 vs FP5
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 4x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,861 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,861 vs 5,209
  • 4.3x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (49,326 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    49,326 vs 11,469
  • 14 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 81.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,639 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,639 vs 2,558
  • 5.04x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (14,147 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    14,147 vs 2,804.5
  • 99.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,063 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,063 vs 1,535
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 20.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x2.4 GHz & 12x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 4x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (32 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    32 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost Max 3
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 12x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    36 MB vs 3 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 5.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2048 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,048 KB vs 384 KB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.33x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    30 MB vs 9 MB
  • 3.6x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.18x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.84x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (182 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    182 W vs 64 W
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 17.3% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (329 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    329 vs 398.015
  • 37.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.84x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (182 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    182 W vs 64 W
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core Ultra 7 265

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance for productivity tasks like video editing, 3D rendering, and compiling code due to its 20-core (8P + 12E) configuration.
  • Significant improvements in power efficiency and thermal management compared to the previous 14th Gen (Raptor Lake Refresh) chips.
  • Strong integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG architecture) that can handle light 1080p gaming without a discrete GPU.
  • Mature and stable DDR5 memory support, with the ability to handle very high-speed modules (7200MT/s and above).
  • Competitive value for professional 'workstation' users compared to higher-end flagships like the Ultra 9 285K.
  • Excellent 1% low frame rate consistency in gaming, providing a 'smoother' feel even if average FPS isn't the highest.

What customers don't like about Intel Core Ultra 7 265

  • Gaming performance often trails behind AMD's Ryzen X3D chips, particularly in cache-sensitive titles.
  • Requires a new LGA 1851 motherboard (Z890 chipset), increasing the total cost for users upgrading from older Intel platforms.
  • The removal of Hyper-Threading can result in performance regressions in specific legacy multi-threaded applications.
  • Limited overclocking headroom as the chip is pushed close to its stable limits out of the box.
  • Early adopters reported initial software and BIOS bugs typical of a new architecture, though many have been patched.
  • No stock cooler is included, adding to the overall system build cost.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a high-performance desktop processor from the Arrow Lake-S series featuring a hybrid architecture with 20 cores (8 Performance-cores and 12 Efficient-cores) and 20 threads. Built on the TSMC N3B 3nm process for the LGA 1851 socket, it offers a max turbo frequency of 5.3 GHz, 30MB of L3 cache, and 36MB of L2 cache, with a base TDP of 65W and a maximum turbo power of 182W. Its main pros include exceptional multi-threaded productivity performance, improved thermal efficiency over previous generations, and advanced AI capabilities through the integrated Intel AI Boost NPU and Xe-LPG graphics architecture. However, notable cons include trailing behind AMD's X3D chips in raw gaming performance and the lack of hyperthreading support compared to older Intel generations.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 7 265 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and other processors

No results found