Xeon W-1290TE vs Ultra 7 265F
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 265F outperforms Xeon W-1290TE by a whopping 244% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 152 | 891 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 77.70 | 24.22 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 45.84 | 24.72 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 13 May 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $379 | $552 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ultra 7 265F has 221% better value for money than Xeon W-1290TE.
Detailed specifications
Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE 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 | 20 (Icosa-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Performance-cores | 8 | no data |
| Efficient-cores | 12 | no data |
| Threads | 20 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 112 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 243 mm2 | 206 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 17,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE 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 | FCLGA1851 | 1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | + | - |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN | - |
Security technologies
Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-6400 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Ultra 7 265F and Xeon W-1290TE.
| PCIe version | 5.0 and 4.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 16 |
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.13 | 9.04 |
| Recency | 7 January 2025 | 13 May 2020 |
| Physical cores | 20 | 10 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ultra 7 265F has a 244.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon W-1290TE, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon W-1290TE in performance tests.
Note that Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop processor while Xeon W-1290TE is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
