Ultra 7 265KF vs Xeon D-2799

Aggregate performance score

Xeon D-2799
2022
20 cores / 40 threads, 129 Watt
21.27
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.62
+76.9%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Xeon D-2799 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25382
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation28.1299.79
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency15.6028.48
Architecture codenameIce Lake-D (2022−2023)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date24 February 2022 (2 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,972$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 255% better value for money than Xeon D-2799.

Detailed specifications

Xeon D-2799 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 cores20 (Icosa-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads4020
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cache80 KB (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.25 MB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm3 nm
Die sizeno data243 mm2
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon D-2799 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 configuration11
SocketFCBGA25791851
Power consumption (TDP)129 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssist-no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX-+
Thermal Monitoring+-
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB+no data
SGXYes with Intel® SPSno data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon D-2799 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version4.05.0
PCI Express lanes3220
USB revision3.0no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports24no data
Number of USB ports4no data
Integrated LAN-no data

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.

Xeon D-2799 21.27
Ultra 7 265KF 37.62
+76.9%

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.

Xeon D-2799 33792
Ultra 7 265KF 59759
+76.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.27 37.62
Recency 24 February 2022 24 October 2024
Threads 40 20
Chip lithography 10 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 129 Watt 125 Watt

Xeon D-2799 has 100% more threads.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 76.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 3.2% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon D-2799 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon D-2799 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon D-2799 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 Xeon D-2799
Xeon D-2799
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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon D-2799 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 34 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 Xeon D-2799 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.