Ultra 7 265KF vs Celeron G3900E

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G3900E
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
1.30
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
39.75
+2958%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Celeron G3900E by a whopping 2958% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking227673
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.12100.00
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency3.4529.54
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date2 January 2016 (8 years ago)24 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 83233% better value for money than Celeron G3900E.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G3900E 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 cores2 (Dual-core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads220
Base clock speedno data3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz5.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache128 KB112 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm3 nm
Die size98.57 mm2243 mm2
Number of transistors1750 Million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G3900E 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
Socketno data1851
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900E 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

Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesLPDDR3-1866DDR5
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 510N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version3.05.0
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 G3900E 1.30
Ultra 7 265KF 39.75
+2958%

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 G3900E 2034
Ultra 7 265KF 61964
+2946%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.30 39.75
Recency 2 January 2016 24 October 2024
Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 14 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron G3900E has 257.1% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 2957.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3900E in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron G3900E is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900E and Core Ultra 7 265KF, 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 G3900E
Celeron G3900E
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF
Core Ultra 7 265KF

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.


2 1 vote

Rate Celeron G3900E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G3900E or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.