Intel Arc G3 EXTREME vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Arc G3 EXTREME. The margins vary substantially, from a narrow 9.6% single-thread advantage to a 68.6% gap in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The largest single advantage appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 5926 against 1862 for the Arc G3 EXTREME, a delta of -68.6%. The R23 multi-core test shows nearly the same pattern, with the Ultra 7 265F at 41980 versus 14655, a -65.1% difference. These two results indicate that the desktop part holds a commanding lead in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Cinebench R15 follows a similar trend. In multi-core, the Ultra 7 265F posts 4231 versus 2192, a -48.2% margin. Single-core R15 shows 597 against 267, a -55.3% difference. The R20 results are consistent, with the Ultra 7 265F ahead by -37.9% in both multi-core (17631 vs 10945) and single-core (2488 vs 1545) tests.

PassMark's integer math workload gives the Ultra 7 265F a 138078 score against 71164, a -48.5% gap. Floating point math shows an even larger -50% difference: 173855 versus 86929. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265F at 507018 versus 307094, a -39.4% margin, while data encryption shows -39.5% (39468 vs 23881).

The extended instructions test gives the Ultra 7 265F a -38.8% advantage (39235 vs 24017). Prime number finding shows -40.4% (416 vs 248). Random string sorting yields -40.2% (62439 vs 37331). The multithreaded PassMark score is -37.9% (49410 vs 30659). Physics simulation shows the narrowest gap among multi-threaded tests at -20.7% (3172 vs 2515).

The smallest margin of the entire comparison is in PassMark single-threaded performance: 4750 versus 4293, a -9.6% difference. This suggests the architectural efficiency of the Arc G3 EXTREME's Panther Lake core design partially closes the gap when only one thread is active, even though the Ultra 7 265F still holds the lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded benchmark category. Its strongest advantages are in Cinebench R23 workloads, where it leads by more than 65% in both single-core and multi-core tests. This indicates a substantial advantage in sustained rendering tasks that stress the CPU for extended periods.

In PassMark workloads, the Ultra 7 265F leads by roughly 38% to 50% across most tests, with floating point math and integer math showing the largest gaps. Data compression and encryption are also strongly in favor of the Ultra 7 265F, with margins near 39.5%. The physics simulation test shows the smallest margin among multi-threaded workloads at -20.7%, while the single-threaded PassMark test shows the overall smallest margin at -9.6%.

The Intel Arc G3 EXTREME, despite losing every test, demonstrates relative strength in single-threaded PassMark performance and physics simulation. Its -9.6% single-thread delta indicates that Panther Lake's core design is comparatively competitive on a per-thread basis, even though the higher clock speed of the Ultra 7 265F (5.30 GHz boost versus 4.70 GHz) and its larger core count (20 versus 14) ultimately decide the outcome.

For mobile or low-power scenarios, the Arc G3 EXTREME consumes 25 W TDP versus 65 W for the Ultra 7 265F, making it the more power-efficient option despite lower performance. The data does not include power-normalized benchmarks, so the exact efficiency ratio cannot be quantified from the recorded results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438, while the Intel Arc G3 EXTREME averages 36699. The Ultra 7 265F also ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 85th percentile for the Arc G3 EXTREME.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Ultra 7 265F scores 41980 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Arc G3 EXTREME scores 14655. This represents a -65.1% delta, meaning the Ultra 7 265F is approximately 65% faster in this workload.

Q: Is the Arc G3 EXTREME competitive in any single benchmark?

A: The closest result is in PassMark single-threaded performance, where the Arc G3 EXTREME scores 4293 versus 4750 for the Ultra 7 265F, a -9.6% gap. This is the smallest margin across all recorded tests, though the Ultra 7 265F still wins.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: For the Arc G3 EXTREME, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (average score 36938, delta -0.6%), AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (36945, -0.7%), AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D (37018, -0.9%), and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093, -1.1%). For the Ultra 7 265F, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (64640, -0.3%), AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, +0.4%), AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, -0.6%), and Intel Core i9-13900KS (64051, +0.6%).

Q: How do the two processors compare in data compression performance?

A: The Ultra 7 265F scores 507018 in PassMark data compression, versus 307094 for the Arc G3 EXTREME, a -39.4% difference. The Ultra 7 265F also leads data encryption by -39.5%, with scores of 39468 and 23881 respectively.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Arc G3 EXTREME and the Ultra 7 265F have ECC memory support set to false in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Arc G3 EXTREME uses 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor supports simultaneous multithreading, as thread counts equal core counts for both.

Base clock speeds differ: the Arc G3 EXTREME runs at 1.90 GHz base, while the Ultra 7 265F runs at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks are 4.70 GHz for the Arc G3 EXTREME and 5.30 GHz for the Ultra 7 265F.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The Arc G3 EXTREME has a 25 W TDP, and the Ultra 7 265F has a 65 W TDP. The Arc G3 EXTREME uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, while the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support differs: the Arc G3 EXTREME supports LPDDR5X memory, while the Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but memory bandwidth is higher for the Arc G3 EXTREME at 136.5 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265F.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Arc G3 EXTREME provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ: the Arc G3 EXTREME includes Arc B390 graphics, while the Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Market segments differ: the Arc G3 EXTREME is a mobile processor, and the Ultra 7 265F is a desktop processor. Release dates differ as well, with the Ultra 7 265F released on 2025-01-06 and the Arc G3 EXTREME on 2026-05-27.

The Ultra 7 265F has a launch MSRP of $379. The Arc G3 EXTREME has no recorded launch MSRP.

Part numbers also differ: the Arc G3 EXTREME is SA4R3, and the Ultra 7 265F is SRQCV.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use different Intel architectures. The Arc G3 EXTREME is built on the Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake, belonging to the Arc G3 (Panther Lake) generation. The Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S, belonging to the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation.

Both are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but they use different foundries. The Arc G3 EXTREME is fabricated by Intel, while the Ultra 7 265F is fabricated by TSMC.

Cache hierarchies differ. Both processors have 192 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core for the Arc G3 EXTREME and 3 MB per core for the Ultra 7 265F. Shared L3 cache is 18 MB for the Arc G3 EXTREME and 30 MB for the Ultra 7 265F.

The Ultra 7 265F has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Arc G3 EXTREME has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both have ECC memory support set to false. The production status for both is recorded as Active.

The Arc G3 EXTREME includes integrated Arc B390 graphics, while the Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output. This difference is consistent with their market segments: mobile processors typically integrate graphics, while desktop processors in this comparison do not.