Ultra 7 265KF vs Xeon E5-1620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-1620
2012
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
3.69
Core Ultra 7 265KF
2024
20 cores / 20 threads, 125 Watt
37.51
+917%

Core Ultra 7 265KF outperforms Xeon E5-1620 by a whopping 917% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking149282
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.7699.40
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.6728.25
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)24 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$313$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ultra 7 265KF has 5548% better value for money than Xeon E5-1620.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-1620 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)20 (Icosa-Core)
Threads820
Base clock speed3.6 GHz3.9 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz5.5 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)112 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)3 MB (per core)
L3 cache10240 KB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm3 nm
Die size294 mm2243 mm2
Maximum core temperature64 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,270 million17,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-1620 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
SocketFCLGA20111851
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt125 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXno data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-1620 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 Xeon E5-1620 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 Xeon E5-1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size375 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Core Ultra 7 265KF.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4020

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.

Xeon E5-1620 3.69
Ultra 7 265KF 37.51
+917%

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.

Xeon E5-1620 5858
Ultra 7 265KF 59590
+917%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.69 37.51
Recency 6 March 2012 24 October 2024
Physical cores 4 20
Threads 8 20
Chip lithography 32 nm 3 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 125 Watt

Ultra 7 265KF has a 916.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 400% more physical cores and 150% more threads, a 966.7% more advanced lithography process, and 4% lower power consumption.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-1620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-1620 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 7 265KF is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1620 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 Xeon E5-1620
Xeon E5-1620
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.


4.3 171 vote

Rate Xeon E5-1620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 36 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 Xeon E5-1620 or Core Ultra 7 265KF, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.