Ultra 7 265 vs FX-9830P
Primary details
Comparing FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1871 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Bristol Ridge | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.68 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 31 May 2016 (8 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 320 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per module) | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 250 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265 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 | FP4 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) ( - 900 MHz) | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 20 |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
FX-9830P has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265, on the other hand, has 400% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 833.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that FX-9830P is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-9830P and Core Ultra 7 265, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
