Ultra 7 265KF vs Celeron J1850

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J1850
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
0.62
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
40.49
+6431%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Celeron J1850 by a whopping 6431% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking279272
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data100.00
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency5.6529.54
Architecture codenameBay Trail-D (2013)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)24 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)$82$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J1850 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads420
Base clock speed2 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cache224 KB112 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB L2 Cache30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm3 nm
Die sizeno data243 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J1850 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA11701851
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI-no data
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J1850 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 J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesN/A
Graphics max frequency792 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J1850 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes420

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 J1850 0.62
Ultra 7 265KF 40.49
+6431%

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 J1850 942
Ultra 7 265KF 61964
+6478%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.62 40.49
Recency 1 September 2013 24 October 2024
Physical cores 4 20
Threads 4 20
Chip lithography 22 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron J1850 has 1150% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 6430.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 633.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1850 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron J1850 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J1850 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 J1850
Celeron J1850
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.


3 11 votes

Rate Celeron J1850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6 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 J1850 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.