Ultra 7 265F vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2793 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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 | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 20 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265F, on the other hand, has 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 2066.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core Ultra 7 265F, 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.
