Ultra 7 265K vs Celeron 807

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 807
2012
1 core / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.25
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.11
+14744%

Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Celeron 807 by a whopping 14744% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking317188
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data94.19
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency1.3928.10
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date1 July 2012 (12 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$70$394

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K 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 cores1 (Single-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Performance-coresno data8
Efficient-coresno data12
Threads220
Base clock speed1.5 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed1.5 GHz5.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier15no data
L1 cache64K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache1.5 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm3 nm
Die size131 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1023FCLGA1851
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI-+
FMA+-
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
SIPP-+
Demand Based Switching-no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+
Supported AI Software Frameworks-OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN

Security technologies

Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-6400
Maximum memory size16 GB192 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsIntel® Graphics
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequency950 MHz2 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported24
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.4no data4K @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 8K @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL)
Max resolution over eDPno data4K @ 60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPortno data8K @ 60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data12
OpenGLno data4.5

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K.

PCIe version2.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes1620

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron 807 0.25
Ultra 7 265K 37.11
+14744%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron 807 392
Ultra 7 265K 58943
+14936%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.25 37.11
Recency 1 July 2012 24 October 2024
Physical cores 1 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 32 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron 807 has 635.3% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 14744% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 1900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 807 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 807 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 807 and Core Ultra 7 265K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 807
Celeron 807
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 4 votes

Rate Celeron 807 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 88 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 265K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 807 or Core Ultra 7 265K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.