Ultra 7 265F vs Celeron U3400

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3088not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency1.67no data
Architecture codenameWestmere (2010−2011)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date24 May 2010 (14 years ago)January 2025

Detailed specifications

Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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 speed1.06 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed0.07 GHz5.3 GHz
Bus typeDMI 1.0no data
Bus rate1 × 2.5 GT/sno data
Multiplier8no data
L1 cache128 KB112 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm3 nm
Die size81 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors382 Million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F 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
SocketBGA12881851
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA+-
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800DDR5
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth12.799 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel ProcessorsN/A
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency500 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes1620

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 32 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 65 Watt

Celeron U3400 has 261.1% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265F, on the other hand, has 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron U3400 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron U3400 and Core Ultra 7 265F, 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 U3400
Celeron U3400
Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
Core Ultra 7 265F

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.


2.4 30 votes

Rate Celeron U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron U3400 or Core Ultra 7 265F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.