Ultra 7 265K vs Opteron 240
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 86 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 94.49 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.18 |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | April 2003 (21 year ago) | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $394 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Opteron 240 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 240 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | 940 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 20 |
| Threads | 1 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 125 Watt |
Opteron 240 has 47.1% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has 1900% more physical cores and 1900% more threads, and a 4233.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Opteron 240 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 240 and Core Ultra 7 265K, 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.
