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

The Intel Core 7 251TE and Intel Core Ultra 7 265F are both active desktop processors from Intel, but the benchmark data shows they occupy very different performance tiers. The Core Ultra 7 265F wins every single recorded benchmark comparison, with a perfect 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265F is 64,438, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 251TE averages 41,650, which puts it in the 88th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Core Ultra 7 265F comes in the PassMark extended instructions test, where it scores 39,235 against 16,974 for the Core 7 251TE. That is a delta of 56.7% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265F, the largest performance gap recorded between the two processors. The find prime numbers workload shows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 265F scoring 416 versus 140, a 66.3% advantage, which is the second largest delta in the dataset.

Floating point math also heavily favors the Core Ultra 7 265F. It scores 173,855 against 85,607, a 50.8% lead. The data encryption test shows a 43.8% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F, with scores of 39,468 versus 22,176. The multithreaded PassMark score is 49,410 for the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 30,022 for the Core 7 251TE, a 39.2% difference.

The Cinebench suite tells the same story consistently. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41,980 while the Core 7 251TE scores 25,518, a 39.2% delta. The single-core R23 test shows 5,926 versus 3,602, also a 39.2% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core repeat the exact same 39.2% margin, with scores of 17,631 versus 10,717 and 2,488 versus 1,512 respectively. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 4,231 versus 2,572, a 39.2% delta, and R15 single-core shows 597 versus 362, a 39.4% delta.

The closest contest is in PassMark integer math, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 138,078 against 125,739, a modest 8.9% lead. This is the smallest margin of any test. The PassMark single-thread score shows a 24.9% advantage for the Core Ultra 7 265F, with 4,750 against 3,568. Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 7 265F by 36.5%, with 62,439 versus 39,643. Data compression shows a 34% lead for the Core Ultra 7 265F, scoring 507,018 versus 334,399. The physics test rounds out the list with a 38.9% advantage, 3,172 versus 1,938.

The nearest rivals for the Core 7 251TE are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H at 41,621 average score, the Intel Core i7-14650HX at 41,576, the Intel Core i7-12850HX at 41,779, and the Intel Core i7-14700T at 41,914. The Core 7 251TE sits within 0.6% of all of these processors, indicating that its average score is tightly clustered with its peers. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265F include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at 64,640, the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64,202, the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64,823, and the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 64,051. The Core Ultra 7 265F is within 0.6% of these processors as well.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64,438, while the Intel Core 7 251TE has an average score of 41,650.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41,980 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 39.2% higher than the Core 7 251TE score of 25,518.

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F leads by 8.9%, scoring 138,078 versus 125,739.

Q: Which processor has the larger number of cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The process node difference is a major factor in the performance gap, as the 3 nm node allows for significantly higher efficiency and performance density.

The Core Ultra 7 265F has a die size of 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors. The Core 7 251TE has a die size of 215 mm², and its transistor count is not recorded in the database. The Core Ultra 7 265F is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the Core 7 251TE belongs to the Core 7 generation. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, meaning the two are not socket compatible.

Cache layouts also differ substantially. The Core 7 251TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 251TE has more shared L3 cache, but the Core Ultra 7 265F has much larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, which contributes to its single-thread performance advantage.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265F supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 7 265F achieves a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251TE. The Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core Ultra 7 265F.

The integrated graphics situation is another clear difference. The Core 7 251TE includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Core Ultra 7 265F offers more PCIe lanes: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 7 251TE.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ. The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 251TE supports hyper-threading, as indicated by its higher thread count, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has a 1:1 core to thread ratio.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 7 265F in base clock but the Core 7 251TE in boost clock. The Core Ultra 7 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz, while the Core 7 251TE has a base clock of 1.40 GHz. The boost clock is 5.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265F and 5.40 GHz for the Core 7 251TE, a small 0.10 GHz advantage for the Core 7 251TE.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The Core 7 251TE is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 265F is rated at 65 W TDP. The Core 7 251TE consumes less power, but the benchmark data shows it also delivers substantially lower performance.

The release dates are close, with the Core Ultra 7 265F released on 2025-01-06 and the Core 7 251TE released on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 7 251TE is $384, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265F is $379. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither offers unlocked overclocking. The part numbers are SRQAXQ5ZG for the Core 7 251TE and SRQCV for the Core Ultra 7 265F.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F outperforms the Intel Core 7 251TE in every single recorded test, with deltas ranging from 8.9% in integer math to 66.3% in find prime numbers. The average benchmark score advantage is 22,788 points, which places the Core Ultra 7 265F in the 93rd percentile versus the 88th percentile for the Core 7 251TE.

The Core 7 251TE does have advantages in specific specifications. It offers more cores and threads, 24 cores and 32 threads versus 20 cores and 20 threads. It has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes integrated graphics, supports ECC memory, and has a lower TDP of 45 W versus 65 W. The Core 7 251TE also has a larger shared L3 cache of 36 MB versus 30 MB.

However, the performance data shows that these specification advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. The Core Ultra 7 265F wins on every workload tested, from single-threaded tasks to heavily multithreaded workloads. The 3 nm process node, larger per-core caches, higher base clock, and higher memory bandwidth of the Core Ultra 7 265F appear to be decisive factors.

The Core 7 251TE sits within 0.6% of its nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H, Core i7-14650HX, Core i7-12850HX, and Core i7-14700T. The Core Ultra 7 265F also sits within 0.6% of its nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, AMD EPYC 7343, AMD EPYC 4464P, and Intel Core i9-13900KS. The performance tier difference between the two is clear from these rival groups.

For users prioritizing ECC memory support, integrated graphics, DDR4 compatibility, and lower power consumption, the Core 7 251TE offers those features. For users prioritizing raw performance, the Core Ultra 7 265F is the only choice based on the recorded data, as it leads in every benchmark category without exception.