Ultra 7 265KF vs Celeron 847E
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Celeron 847E by a whopping 10443% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3030 | 73 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 100.00 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.06 | 29.53 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $111 | $379 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 847E 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 11 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 504 Million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 847E 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1333 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847E and Core Ultra 7 265KF.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 39.01 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 20 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 125 Watt |
Celeron 847E has 635.3% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 10443.2% higher aggregate performance score, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 847E in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 847E is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847E 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.
