Ultra 7 265KF vs Celeron T3000

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.07
+8521%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Celeron T3000 by a whopping 8521% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking296789
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data97.72
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.1628.07
Architecture codenameno dataArrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date1 April 2009 (15 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron T3000 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 cores2 (Dual-core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads220
Base clock speed1.8 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speedno data5.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data3 MB (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 Cache30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm3 nm
Die sizeno data243 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range1V-1.25Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron T3000 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 configurationno data1
SocketPGA4781851
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-+
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX-+
Demand Based Switching-no data

Security technologies

Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron T3000 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

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.

Celeron T3000 0.43
Ultra 7 265KF 37.07
+8521%

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.

Celeron T3000 687
Ultra 7 265KF 58883
+8471%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.43 37.07
Recency 1 April 2009 24 October 2024
Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 45 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 125 Watt

Celeron T3000 has 257.1% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 8520.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron T3000 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3000 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 Celeron T3000
Celeron T3000
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.


5 2 votes

Rate Celeron T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 38 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 Celeron T3000 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.