Ultra 7 265K vs i9-12900F

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-12900F
2022
16 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
23.38
Core Ultra 7 265K
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
38.24
+63.6%

Core Ultra 7 265K outperforms Core i9-12900F by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22583
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data90.97
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency33.4128.41
Architecture codenameAlder Lake-S (2022)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date4 January 2022 (2 years ago)24 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$394

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i9-12900F 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads2420
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed5.1 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cache80K (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1.25 MB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithographyIntel 7 nm3 nm
Die size215 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-12900F 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA17001851
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX++
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
SIPP-+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5-4800, DDR4-3200DDR5 Depends on motherboard
Maximum memory size128 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataArc Xe2 Graphics 64EU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K.

PCIe version5.0 and 4.05.0
PCI Express lanes2020

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.

i9-12900F 23.38
Ultra 7 265K 38.24
+63.6%

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.

i9-12900F 36452
Ultra 7 265K 59601
+63.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.38 38.24
Recency 4 January 2022 24 October 2024
Physical cores 16 20
Threads 24 20
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

i9-12900F has 20% more threads, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265K, on the other hand, has a 63.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 25% more physical cores.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i9-12900F in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-12900F and Core Ultra 7 265K, 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 Core i9-12900F
Core i9-12900F
Intel Core Ultra 7 265K
Core Ultra 7 265K

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.


4.2 150 votes

Rate Core i9-12900F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 59 votes

Rate Core Ultra 7 265K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-12900F or Core Ultra 7 265K, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.