Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads. The 251TE offers 4 more cores and 12 more threads.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 boosts to 5.30 GHz. The 251TE holds a 0.10 GHz advantage in peak frequency.

Q: Which CPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, whereas the Intel Core 7 251TE uses Intel's 10 nm process. The 265 also has a larger die at 243 mm² versus 215 mm² for the 251TE.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 does not support ECC.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 251TE has an average score of 41650 and sits in the 88th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Core 7 251TE is based on Bartlett Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process, and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, using Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, and mounts to the Intel Socket 1851.

The core configurations differ significantly. The 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with more logical threads than physical cores. The 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, which points to a 1:1 thread-to-core ratio. Despite fewer cores, the 265 uses larger per-core caches: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, versus 80 KB and 1.25 MB per core for the 251TE. The 251TE counters with a larger shared L3 cache at 36 MB, while the 265 has 30 MB shared.

Memory architecture differs as well. The 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with a measured bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The 265 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but reaches 102.4 GB/s. The 251TE includes ECC memory support, a feature absent on the 265.

PCIe capability favors the 265, which provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the 251TE. Integrated graphics also differ: the 251TE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 265 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU.

The 265 has a higher transistor count at 17,800 million and a larger die size of 243 mm². The 251TE lists a die size of 215 mm² with no transistor count in the database. Base clocks diverge sharply: the 251TE runs at 1.40 GHz base, while the 265 runs at 2.40 GHz base. Boost clocks are close, with the 251TE at 5.40 GHz and the 265 at 5.30 GHz.

Power envelopes place the 251TE at 45 W TDP and the 265 at 65 W TDP. Both are desktop parts, both are active production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 251TE launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $384. The 265 launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $394.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two desktop processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including all but two of the tested workloads. Its average benchmark score of 64640 versus 41650 for the 251TE represents a substantial overall advantage, and its 93rd percentile ranking versus 88th confirms a higher standing among all CPUs.

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins only the Cinebench R20 tests, both multi-core and single-core. Those wins are notable but isolated. In every other measurement, including Cinebench R15, Cinebench R23, and all PassMark tests, the 265 delivers higher scores.

Users who need the specific Cinebench R20 workload performance, who require ECC memory support, or who want the lower 45 W TDP would look to the 251TE. Users who want the strongest overall benchmark results, faster single-thread performance, higher memory bandwidth, and a smaller 3 nm process node would pick the 265.

The 265 also offers a newer socket platform with more PCIe lanes. The 251TE retains advantages in thread count, L3 cache size, and memory type flexibility. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

|----------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

| Cores | 24 | 20 |

| Threads | 32 | 20 |

| Base clock | 1.40 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 36 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC support | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | $394 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 dominates the head-to-head results. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265 scores 42216 against 25518 for the 251TE, a 39.6% advantage. The single-core R23 test shows 5960 versus 3602, also a 39.6% gap. Cinebench R15 follows the same pattern: 4255 versus 2572 in multi-core and 600 versus 362 in single-core, both 39.6% and 39.7% deltas respectively.

PassMark results widen the gap further. Data compression favors the 265 at 522983 versus 334399, a 36.1% lead. Data encryption shows 40456 versus 22176, a 45.2% margin. Extended instructions deliver the largest difference: 41478 versus 16974, a 59.1% gap. Floating point math scores 172776 versus 85607, a 50.5% lead. The 265 also wins random string sorting 63833 to 39643, a 37.9% margin, and physics 2923 to 1938, a 33.7% edge. Integer math is closer: 134773 versus 125739, only a 6.7% difference.

The Intel Core 7 251TE secures two wins in Cinebench R20. Multi-core R20 shows 10717 versus 6268, a 71% advantage. Single-core R20 shows 1512 versus 884, also a 71% lead. These results are an outlier relative to the rest of the suite, where the 265 consistently leads.

PassMark single-thread results favor the 265 by 4689 to 3568, a 23.9% margin. Multithread PassMark shows 49682 versus 30022, a 39.6% gap. Prime number finding shows 418 versus 140, a 66.5% margin, the second-largest delta in the entire comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins in almost every category of measured performance. It leads in content creation workloads as measured by Cinebench R15 and R23, in all PassMark subtests, and in single-thread performance. Its wins cover data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics simulation, random string sorting, and prime number finding. The 265 also has the higher base clock at 2.40 GHz, the larger L1 and L2 caches per core, higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, more PCIe lanes, and the smaller 3 nm process node from TSMC.

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins specifically in Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core tests. It also holds structural advantages that matter for certain configurations: 24 cores versus 20, 32 threads versus 20, a larger 36 MB L3 cache, support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, ECC memory support, a lower 45 W TDP, and a lower launch MSRP of $384 versus $394. The 251TE uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the 265 uses Socket 1851, so platform choice will influence which chip fits an existing build.

For workloads that mirror Cinebench R20, the 251TE delivers a clear 71% margin over the 265. For everything else measured, the 265 is the stronger part, often by wide margins. The 265 also ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs versus the 88th percentile for the 251TE, reinforcing its overall benchmark superiority.