Ultra 7 265K vs Celeron G1610
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Celeron G1610 by a whopping 3780% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2496 | 86 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 89.80 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.65 | 28.20 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 3 December 2012 (11 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $388 | $394 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ultra 7 265K has 299233% better value for money than Celeron G1610.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G1610 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G1610 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| SIPP | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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 | 0.96 | 37.25 |
| Recency | 3 December 2012 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 20 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 125 Watt |
Celeron G1610 has 127.3% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 3780.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 633.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and Core Ultra 7 265K, 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.
