Ultra 7 265K vs Celeron N5095A

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N5095A
2021
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
2.59
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.10
+1332%

Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Celeron N5095A by a whopping 1332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking173987
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data94.19
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency16.3428.10
Architecture codenameJasper Lake (2021)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date1 July 2021 (3 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$394

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N5095A 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Performance-coresno data8
Efficient-coresno data12
Threads420
Base clock speed2 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.5 MB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm3 nm
Die sizeno data243 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N5095A 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 configuration11
SocketBGA1338FCLGA1851
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® 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
TSX-+
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 N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection+-
SGX-no data
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5-6400
Maximum memory size16 GB192 GB
Max memory channels22
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD GraphicsIntel® Graphics
Quick Sync Video++
Graphics max frequency750 MHz2 GHz
Execution Units16no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported34
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2160@60Hz4K @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 8K @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL)
Max resolution over eDP4096x2160@60Hz4K @ 60Hz
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2160@60Hz8K @ 60Hz

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX1212
OpenGL4.54.5

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K.

PCIe versionno data5.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes820
USB revision2.0/3.2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports14no data
Integrated LAN-no data

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 N5095A 2.59
Ultra 7 265K 37.10
+1332%

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 N5095A 4110
Ultra 7 265K 58937
+1334%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.59 37.10
Recency 1 July 2021 24 October 2024
Physical cores 4 20
Threads 4 20
Chip lithography 10 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron N5095A has 733.3% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 1332.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N5095A in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N5095A and Core Ultra 7 265K, 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 N5095A
Celeron N5095A
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K

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.


3.5 103 votes

Rate Celeron N5095A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 90 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N5095A or Core Ultra 7 265K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.