Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison
Intel Core 7 251E
Core Ultra 7 265F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
Where Each One Wins
The recorded data gives a clear split between these two Intel desktop parts. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F holds the performance advantage across every benchmark category with recorded scores, while the Intel Core 7 251E counters primarily with a broader feature set and a different core configuration. The 265F delivers substantially higher multi-threaded scores in Cinebench tests, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 41980, which places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 251E, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning the quantitative comparison relies entirely on the 265F's measured results.
The 265F wins on single-thread performance as well, posting a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5926 against the 251E's lack of recorded data. PassMark results for the 265F show strong integer math at 138078, floating point math at 173855, and a multi-thread score of 49410. Data compression reaches 507018, while encryption hits 39468. The 251E has no recorded benchmark entries, so the database cannot assign it any wins in measured workloads.
The use-case split therefore favors the 265F for any workload captured by the database, including rendering, encryption, compression, and physics simulation. The 251E, with its 24 cores and 32 threads, offers more threads than the 265F's 20 cores and 20 threads, but without benchmark scores the database cannot confirm whether that thread advantage translates into real-world wins. The data shows the 265F as the only one of the two with measurable performance evidence, and it wins every recorded category by default.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel designs. The 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, while the 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, whereas the 251E is a Core 7 Bartlett Lake part. The 265F integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the 251E lists a 257 mm² die with no transistor count recorded.
Core counts differ significantly. The 251E provides 24 cores and 32 threads, while the 265F provides 20 cores and 20 threads. The 251E therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it 8 more threads than physical cores, while the 265F has a 1:1 thread-to-core ratio. Cache layouts also differ. The 251E uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 265F uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The 251E holds the larger L3 pool, while the 265F carries larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.
Memory support diverges as well. The 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. The 265F supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs: the 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The 251E includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 770, while the 265F has no integrated graphics. Sockets differ as well, with the 251E using Intel Socket 1700 and the 265F using Intel Socket 1851. Both parts have locked multipliers.
The Verdict
The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F for performance. Its recorded Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41980 and single-core score of 5926 establish it as a high-tier desktop processor, and its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database confirms that standing. The 265F also sits within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 4464P, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900KS, 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7343, and 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 265. These nearest rival comparisons place it in elite company for desktop and workstation workloads.
The Intel Core 7 251E offers a different value proposition in the database: more cores, more threads, larger L3 cache, ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, and integrated graphics. It uses a larger 257 mm² die on Intel's 10 nm node, compared to the 265F's 243 mm² die on TSMC's 3 nm node. The 251E also carries a launch MSRP of $384, while the 265F carries a launch MSRP of $379. Without recorded benchmarks for the 251E, the database cannot quantify its performance, so the verdict must rest on the 265F's measured results.
Users who need verified performance data should select the 265F. Users who require ECC memory, integrated graphics, DDR4 support, or a higher thread count on an LGA1700 platform would look to the 251E, but the database contains no measurements to confirm its speed. The 265F is the only one of the two with recorded performance evidence, and it delivers top-tier results.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads.
Q: What is the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F?
A: The 265F scores 41980 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 5926 in single-core.
Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E support ECC memory?
A: Yes, the 251E supports ECC memory and also supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The 265F supports only DDR5 and does not support ECC.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics.
Q: How do the two processors compare in the database percentile ranking?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 251E ranks in the 50th percentile.
Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for these two chips?
A: The 251E uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the 265F uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The database records no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors, so the comparison relies on the 265F's individual benchmark results. The 265F posts a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 4231 and a single-core score of 597. In Cinebench R20, it scores 17631 multi-core and 2488 single-core. The Cinebench R23 results of 41980 multi-core and 5926 single-core represent the most demanding rendering workloads in the recorded set.
PassMark results for the 265F show a multi-thread score of 49410 and a single-thread score of 4750. Integer math reaches 138078, floating point math reaches 173855, and extended instructions score 39235. Data compression scores 507018, data encryption scores 39468, and random string sorting scores 62439. Physics simulation posts 3172, and prime number finding posts 416. The average benchmark score for the 265F is 64438.
Because the 251E has no recorded benchmarks, the database cannot show any comparative wins for it. The nearest rivals for the 265F provide context: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 averages 64640, which is 0.3% higher than the 265F; the AMD EPYC 4464P averages 64823, 0.6% higher; the AMD EPYC 7343 averages 64202, 0.4% lower; and the Intel Core i9-13900KS averages 64051, 0.6% lower. These deltas place the 265F within a narrow performance band of four strong competitors, none of which exceed it by more than 0.6%.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ on every major specification field except for TDP and market segment. Both run at 65 W TDP and target the desktop market.
Clock speeds differ modestly. The 251E has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The 251E boosts higher, while the 265F idles higher.
The 251E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. The 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the 265F uses Arrow Lake-S. Process nodes differ as noted: 10 nm Intel for the 251E, 3 nm TSMC for the 265F. Die size is 257 mm² for the 251E and 243 mm² for the 265F, with the 265F listing 17,800 million transistors.
Cache configurations differ per core and in total L3. The 251E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The 265F has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth; the 265F supports only DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the 251E but not on the 265F. PCIe Gen 5 lanes number 16 on the 251E and 20 on the 265F. Integrated graphics exist only on the 251E. Both processors have locked multipliers and are listed as Active in production status. Release dates fall close together, with the 265F on 2025-01-06 and the 251E on 2025-01-12. Launch MSRP is $384 for the 251E and $379 for the 265F.