Ultra 7 265KF vs i9-7900X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 140 Watt
13.25
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
39.01
+194%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Core i9-7900X by a whopping 194% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking56073
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.87100.00
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency8.9629.53
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date26 June 2017 (7 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 3384% better value for money than i9-7900X.

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads2020
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz5.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache14 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm3 nm
Die sizeno data243 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF 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
SocketSocket R41851
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-d++
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4420

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.

i9-7900X 13.25
Ultra 7 265KF 39.01
+194%

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.

i9-7900X 21049
Ultra 7 265KF 61964
+194%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.25 39.01
Recency 26 June 2017 24 October 2024
Physical cores 10 20
Chip lithography 14 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 125 Watt

Ultra 7 265KF has a 194.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 12% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-7900X in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X and Core Ultra 7 265KF, 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 i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF
Core Ultra 7 265KF

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.


4.1 216 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 24 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7900X or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.