Core Ultra 7 265K vs Core 2 Duo P8600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo P8600
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 25 Watt
0.53
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.20
+6919%

Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Core 2 Duo P8600 by a whopping 6919% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking285985
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data94.49
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core 2 Duono data
Power efficiency2.0128.16
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date15 July 2008 (16 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$209$394

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo P8600 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 cores2 (Dual-core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads220
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz5.5 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cache128 KB112 KB (per core)
L2 cache3 MB3 MB (per core)
L3 cache3 MB L2 Cache30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm3 nm
Die size81 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors274 Million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range1.05V-1.15Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo P8600 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGA479,PBGA479,PGA4781851
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
SIPP-+
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5 Depends on motherboard

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataArc Xe2 Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo P8600 and Core Ultra 7 265K.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

Core 2 Duo P8600 0.53
Ultra 7 265K 37.20
+6919%

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.

Core 2 Duo P8600 849
Ultra 7 265K 59092
+6860%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 37.20
Recency 15 July 2008 24 October 2024
Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 45 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 125 Watt

Core 2 Duo P8600 has 400% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 6918.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo P8600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Duo P8600 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo P8600 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 Core 2 Duo P8600
Core 2 Duo P8600
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.


3.7 148 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo P8600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 84 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 Core 2 Duo P8600 or Core Ultra 7 265K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.