Ultra 7 265T vs Celeron N4000C
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2582 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 14.14 | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 1 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $384 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T 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) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 8 |
| Efficient-cores | no data | 12 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 1.1 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | no data | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 deg C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T 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 | FCBGA1090 | FCLGA1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN |
Security technologies
Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4/LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s | DDR5-6400 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel® Graphics |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 650 MHz | 1.95 GHz |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 4 |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4K @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 8K @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4K @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 8K @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 20 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | - | no data |
| UART | + | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2019 | 7 January 2025 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 20 |
| Threads | 2 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron N4000C has 483.3% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265T, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron N4000C is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265T is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N4000C and Core Ultra 7 265T, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
