Intel Core i7-13790F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 takes 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i7-13790F wins 5. The most decisive victories for the Core Ultra 7 265 come in prime number finding, floating point math, and data encryption, where it leads by 101.9%, 56.3%, and 27.6% respectively. These are not marginal edges; they represent substantial performance gaps in computation-heavy workloads.

In the Cinebench suite, the results are split in a curious way. The Core Ultra 7 265 wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 4255 versus 3568, a 19.3% advantage, and it also takes Cinebench R23 multicore with 42216 versus 35404, another 19.2% lead. The single-core runs follow the same pattern: 600 versus 503 in R15 (19.3%) and 5960 versus 4998 in R23 (19.2%). However, the Cinebench R20 results flip entirely. The Core i7-13790F posts 14869 in multicore against the Core Ultra 7 265's 6268, a 57.8% lead, and in single-core it scores 2099 against 884, a 57.9% lead. This inconsistency across R15, R20, and R23 suggests the two processors respond very differently to the specific workload scaling in each test version.

PassMark tests further clarify the split. The Core Ultra 7 265 leads in multithread score (49682 versus 44737, 11.1%), single-thread (4689 versus 4212, 11.3%), extended instructions (41478 versus 34828, 19.1%), and random string sorting (63833 versus 58607, 8.9%). The Core i7-13790F fights back in data compression (567473 versus 522983, 7.8%), integer math (151416 versus 134773, 11%), and physics (3017 versus 2923, 3.1%). The physics result is notable because it is one of the few tests where the older chip wins by a small margin despite having fewer cores.

The average benchmark scores place the Core Ultra 7 265 at 64640 and the Core i7-13790F at 63080, a difference of about 2.5%. Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same tier of overall performance. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 265 include the AMD EPYC 4464P (64823, just 0.3% higher) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64438, 0.3% lower), while the Core i7-13790F is bracketed by the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX (63173, 0.1% higher) and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (63331, 0.4% higher). These are tight groupings, but the head-to-head tests show where each processor has a definitive edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Core i7-13790F uses Raptor Lake on Intel's 10 nm node. The Core Ultra 7 265 packs 20 cores and 20 threads, whereas the Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. The thread count difference is telling: the older chip relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 24 threads from 16 cores, while the newer chip uses 20 physical cores with no simultaneous multithreading, yet still wins most multithreaded benchmarks.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The Core Ultra 7 265 provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The Core i7-13790F offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a larger 33 MB shared L3. The newer chip's larger per-core L2 cache likely contributes to its strong single-thread and floating point results, while the older chip's larger L3 helps in integer math and compression tests.

Memory support also diverges. The Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a rated bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but the database records no bandwidth figure for it. This makes the newer chip more restrictive on memory choices but gives it a defined bandwidth advantage in the recorded data. Both processors use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and neither supports ECC memory.

The integrated graphics situation is asymmetric. The Core Ultra 7 265 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, while the Core i7-13790F has no integrated graphics at all. This means the newer chip can drive a display without a discrete GPU, which is a practical advantage for basic systems. The Core Ultra 7 265 is also physically smaller at 243 mm² versus 257 mm², and it uses 17,800 million transistors, while the Core i7-13790F has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Socket compatibility is another major divider. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses Intel Socket 1851, while the Core i7-13790F uses Intel Socket 1700. These are not interchangeable, so any upgrade path requires a new motherboard. The Core Ultra 7 265 launched on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $394, while the Core i7-13790F launched on 2023-02-09 with a launch MSRP of $441. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is limited on both. The production status for both is listed as Active.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 as the stronger overall processor. It wins the majority of head-to-head tests, including the most demanding multithreaded workloads in Cinebench R23 and PassMark multithread, and it does so while drawing the same 65 W TDP as the Core i7-13790F. The 19.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and the 11.1% lead in PassMark multithread are consistent with a chip that simply delivers more compute per watt and per clock.

The Core i7-13790F is not without its own merits. It wins data compression, integer math, physics, and the Cinebench R20 tests, and its 24 threads give it an edge in workloads that scale with thread count rather than raw core count. The 57.8% lead in Cinebench R20 multicore is a striking outlier, suggesting that specific R20 workloads favor its architecture heavily. For users running those exact tasks, the older chip could be the better choice.

However, the overall record is unambiguous. The Core Ultra 7 265 wins 12 of the 17 tests, and its wins are often larger in magnitude than its losses. The 101.9% lead in prime number finding and the 56.3% lead in floating point math are particularly decisive. The Core i7-13790F's wins are smaller in most cases, with only the R20 results being truly dominant. Given the same TDP, the newer chip's process advantage and core configuration make it the better all-round performer in the recorded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. The Core i7-13790F has more threads despite fewer cores due to Hyper-Threading.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 wins every recorded single-core test. It leads by 19.3% in Cinebench R15, 19.2% in Cinebench R23, and 11.3% in PassMark single-thread. The only exception is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Core i7-13790F wins by 57.9%.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Do either of these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The Intel Core i7-13790F has no integrated graphics recorded in the database.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Core i7-13790F uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The newer chip also has a smaller die size at 243 mm² versus 257 mm².

Q: Which CPU has higher overall benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64640, while the Core i7-13790F has 63080. Both are at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the clear winner for most compute-heavy tasks. Its 101.9% lead in prime number finding and 56.3% lead in floating point math make it the better choice for scientific computing, numerical simulations, and any workload that stresses mathematical operations. The 27.6% lead in data encryption and 19.1% lead in extended instructions point to advantages in security-related tasks and vectorized code. Its 11.1% multithread lead and 11.3% single-thread lead mean it handles both heavily threaded and lightly threaded applications with equal competence. The Cinebench R23 results, with a 19.2% multicore lead and a 19.2% single-core lead, confirm that it is the stronger chip for rendering workloads in that benchmark.

The Intel Core i7-13790F wins where its thread count and cache layout pay off. The 7.8% lead in data compression and the 11% lead in integer math suggest it is better for file archiving, database operations, and certain types of integer-heavy processing. The 3.1% lead in physics is small but real, indicating a slight edge in that specific PassMark test. The Cinebench R20 results are the outlier: a 57.8% multicore lead and a 57.9% single-core lead. For anyone running Cinebench R20 specifically, the Core i7-13790F is the superior processor, and this cannot be ignored in the overall assessment.

The split is also visible in the benchmark averages. The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 64640 on average, while the Core i7-13790F scores 63080. The newer chip is ahead overall, but the older chip's wins are concentrated in specific memory-sensitive and thread-scalable tasks. Users who prioritize compression, integer math, and Cinebench R20 should look at the Core i7-13790F, while those who need strong floating point, encryption, and general multithreaded performance should pick the Core Ultra 7 265.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 265 and 2.10 GHz for the Core i7-13790F. Boost clocks are 5.30 GHz and 5.20 GHz respectively. Both have a 65 W TDP.

The process node is a key divider: 3 nm for the Core Ultra 7 265 (TSMC) versus 10 nm for the Core i7-13790F (Intel). The die size is 243 mm² for the newer chip and 257 mm² for the older one, with the Core Ultra 7 265 using 17,800 million transistors while the Core i7-13790F has no recorded transistor count.

Cache layouts differ in every level. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The Core i7-13790F has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a larger 33 MB shared L3.

Memory support is another difference: the Core Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Core i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with no recorded bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory.

The socket is different (Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel Socket 1700), and the integrated graphics situation is reversed: the Core Ultra 7 265 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 EU, while the Core i7-13790F has none. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), and both have locked multipliers. The release dates are 2025-01-06 for the Core Ultra 7 265 and 2023-02-09 for the Core i7-13790F. The launch MSRP is $394 for the newer chip and $441 for the older one.