Ultra 7 265K vs Xeon D-1637
Primary details
Comparing Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 87 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 94.19 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon D | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.09 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 2 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 24 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $406 | $394 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon D-1637 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 20 (Icosa-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 8 |
| Efficient-cores | no data | 12 |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 29 | no data |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 9 MB | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 246.24 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3200 Million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon D-1637 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1667 | FCLGA1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| QuickAssist | - | no data |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| AMT | SPS 3.0 | no data |
| Quiet System | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN |
Security technologies
Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| SGX | - | no data |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4, DDR3 | DDR5-6400 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® Graphics |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 2 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4K @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 8K @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4K @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 8K @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K.
| PCIe version | 2.0/3.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 32 | 20 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 6 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 6 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | 4x 10 GBE | no data |
| UART | + | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 April 2019 | 24 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 20 |
| Threads | 12 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon D-1637 has 127.3% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 233.3% more physical cores and 66.7% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon D-1637 and Core Ultra 7 265K. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon D-1637 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-1637 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.
