Ultra 7 265K vs Celeron M 530
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 19489% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3249 | 85 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 94.56 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.60 | 28.16 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | no data | 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
Celeron M 530 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 | 1.73 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 5.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 30 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | no data | 243 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 530 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PBGA479,PPGA478 | FCLGA1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN |
Security technologies
Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-6400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| 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 Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron M 530 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 Celeron M 530 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 Celeron M 530 and Core Ultra 7 265K.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.19 | 37.22 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 20 |
| Threads | 1 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 125 Watt |
Celeron M 530 has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 19489.5% higher aggregate performance score, 1900% more physical cores and 1900% more threads, and a 2066.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 530 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 530 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 530 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.
