Ultra 7 265KF vs PRO A6-9500

Aggregate performance score

PRO A6-9500
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
1.12
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
39.01
+3383%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms PRO A6-9500 by a whopping 3383% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking238773
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data100.00
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.6329.53
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date3 October 2016 (8 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

PRO A6-9500 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 speed3.5 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB (per core)
L2 cache1024 KB3 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm3 nm
Die size250 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,100 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on PRO A6-9500 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
SocketAM41851
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX++
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
Out-of-band client management+-
VirusProtect+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
TSX-+

Security technologies

PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR5
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 GraphicsN/A
iGPU core count6no data
Enduro+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by PRO A6-9500 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes820

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.

PRO A6-9500 1.12
Ultra 7 265KF 39.01
+3383%

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.

PRO A6-9500 1784
Ultra 7 265KF 61964
+3373%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.12 39.01
Recency 3 October 2016 24 October 2024
Physical cores 2 20
Threads 2 20
Chip lithography 28 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 125 Watt

PRO A6-9500 has 92.3% lower power consumption.

Ultra 7 265KF, on the other hand, has a 3383% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads, and a 833.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the PRO A6-9500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between PRO A6-9500 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.


AMD PRO A6-9500
PRO A6-9500
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.


1 4 votes

Rate PRO A6-9500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 24 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 PRO A6-9500 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.