Ultra 7 265KF vs Celeron G1620

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking	2470	73
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	100.00
Market segment	Desktop processor	Desktop processor
Power efficiency	1.69	29.53
Architecture codename	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date	3 December 2012 (11 years ago)	24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$208	$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 333233% better value for money than Celeron G1620.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1620 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 cores	2 (Dual-core)	20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads	2	20
Base clock speed	2.7 GHz	3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed	2.7 GHz	5.5 GHz
Bus rate	5 GT/s	no data
L1 cache	64 KB (per core)	112 KB (per core)
L2 cache	256 KB (per core)	3 MB (per core)
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography	22 nm	3 nm
Die size	94 mm2	243 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)	65 °C	no data
Number of transistors	no data	17,800 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	no data
Unlocked multiplier	-	+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1620 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 configuration	1	1
Socket	FCLGA1155	1851
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	no data
AES-NI	-	+
AVX	+	+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	+
My WiFi	-	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	-	no data
Hyper-Threading Technology	-	no data
TSX	-	+
Idle States	+	no data
Thermal Monitoring	+	-

Security technologies

Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	+
EDB	+	no data
Secure Key	-	no data
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

VT-d	-	+
VT-x	+	+
EPT	+	no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR5
Maximum memory size	32 GB	no data
Max memory channels	2	no data
Maximum memory bandwidth	21 GB/s	no data
ECC memory support	+	-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors	N/A
Graphics max frequency	1.05 GHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported

3

no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version	2.0	5.0
PCI Express lanes	no data	20

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.

---

Pros & cons summary

---

Performance score	0.98	39.01
Recency	3 December 2012	24 October 2024
Physical cores	2	20
Threads	2	20
Chip lithography	22 nm	3 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	125 Watt

---

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620 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.

---