Ultra 7 265KF vs Atom x3-3205RK
Primary details
Comparing Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 73 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 100.00 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 29.54 |
| Architecture codename | Silvermont (2015) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 2 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $379 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | no data | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 1333 MHz Single-channel | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Mali-450 MP4 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 March 2015 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 20 |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 125 Watt |
Atom x3-3205RK has 6150% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 833.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Atom x3-3205RK is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x3-3205RK and Core Ultra 7 265KF, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
