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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and Intel Core i7-13790F are both 65W desktop processors, but they represent two very different design philosophies from Intel. The 265F is the newer Arrow Lake part built on a 3 nm process, while the 13790F is a Raptor Lake chip on a 10 nm node. Benchmark data shows the Ultra 7 265F wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the i7-13790F holds two notable victories that matter for specific workloads. This analysis breaks down the exact performance deltas, architecture differences, and use cases to help decide which CPU fits a build.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistency of the Ultra 7 265F’s victory margin across Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 265F scores 41980 against the 13790F’s 35404, a delta of 18.6%. That same 18.6% advantage appears in R15 multi-core (4231 vs 3568) and R20 multi-core (17631 vs 14869). Single-core results are equally lopsided: the 265F leads by 18.7% in R15 (597 vs 503), 18.5% in R20 (2488 vs 2099), and 18.6% in R23 (5926 vs 4998). These are not marginal wins; the Ultra 7 is consistently about a fifth faster across the board in rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite tells a more varied story. The biggest single delta is in find prime numbers, where the 265F scores 416 versus the 13790F’s 207 — a 101% advantage, meaning the newer chip is more than twice as fast at this math-heavy task. Floating point math also heavily favors the 265F: 173855 vs 110512, a 57.3% lead. Data encryption shows a 24.5% win for the 265F (39468 vs 31703), and extended instructions go to the 265F by 12.7% (39235 vs 34828). The multithread score favors the 265F by 10.4% (49410 vs 44737), and single-thread performance is 12.8% better (4750 vs 4212).

However, the i7-13790F fights back in two areas. Data compression is its best result: 567473 vs 507018, a 10.7% win for the older chip. Integer math also goes to the 13790F: 151416 vs 138078, an 8.8% margin. These are the only two tests the 13790F wins, but they are not trivial — compression and integer math are common in everyday productivity and server-side tasks.

Smaller deltas round out the picture. The 265F wins random string sorting by 6.5% (62439 vs 58607) and physics by 5.1% (3172 vs 3017). The 265F’s average benchmark score is 64438 against the 13790F’s 63080, a difference of about 2.2%. Both CPUs sit at the 93rd percentile of all processors, so either one is a top-tier part, but the Ultra 7 is clearly the stronger overall performer.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every Cinebench multi-core test by 18.6%. In Cinebench R23, it scores 41980 versus the i7-13790F’s 35404. This is a consistent, significant lead across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: Does the i7-13790F win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two of 17 head-to-head tests. It beats the 265F in Passmark data compression (567473 vs 507018, a 10.7% margin) and in Passmark integer math (151416 vs 138078, an 8.8% margin). These are its only victories.

Q: How big is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The 265F leads by 12.8% in Passmark single-thread (4750 vs 4212) and by 18.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (5926 vs 4998). The Ultra 7’s advantage is consistent across both synthetic and real-world single-thread workloads.

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

A: The largest delta is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the 265F scores 416 versus the 13790F’s 207 — a 101% difference. The 265F is over twice as fast at this specific calculation.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance tier?

A: Yes, both are at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438, while the 13790F scores 63080. The 265F’s nearest rival, the Core Ultra 7 265, is only 0.3% ahead, and the 13790F’s nearest rival, the Core Ultra 7 265HX, is 0.1% behind it.

Q: Which CPU has better memory support?

A: The i7-13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265F supports only DDR5. The 265F has a listed memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the 13790F’s memory bandwidth is not specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Ultra 7 265F is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. Its 18.6% advantage across all Cinebench versions makes it the better choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with multi-core performance. The 57.3% lead in floating point math points to advantages in scientific computing, physics simulations, and financial modeling. The 101% win in find prime numbers suggests superiority in cryptography and number-crunching applications. Data encryption, where the 265F leads by 24.5%, is another domain where the newer architecture pulls ahead. For general productivity, the 12.8% single-thread lead means snappier response in everyday applications and better performance in lightly threaded software.

The i7-13790F’s wins are narrower but real. Its 10.7% advantage in data compression makes it the better pick for file archiving, backup software, and database workloads that rely on compression algorithms. The 8.8% win in integer math favors it for certain types of audio processing, image manipulation, and legacy code that is heavily integer-bound. Builders who prioritize these specific tasks over general compute should not dismiss the 13790F, even though it loses the overall benchmark count 15 to 2.

For mixed workloads, the 265F’s 10.4% lead in multithread and 6.5% lead in random string sorting give it an edge in server-style tasks and data processing. The physics test, where the 265F wins by 5.1%, suggests it is also slightly better for physics simulation in gaming or engineering applications. The 13790F is not a bad CPU by any measure — it still hits the 93rd percentile — but its strengths are concentrated in two specific niches.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading, while the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, using hyperthreading to reach that thread count. Clock speeds are close: the 265F has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the 13790F has a 2.10 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. Both have a 65W TDP.

Cache configurations also differ. The 265F has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The 13790F has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but a larger 33 MB of shared L3. The total L3 advantage goes to the 13790F by 3 MB, which may explain its wins in compression and integer math.

Socket and platform requirements are entirely different. The 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, while the 13790F uses Intel Socket 1700. Memory support differs: the 265F only supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the 13790F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed. The 265F has no integrated graphics, while the 13790F’s integrated graphics status is not specified in the data.

Other differences include launch MSRP — the 265F launched at $379 and the 13790F at $441 — and release dates: the 265F was released on 2025-01-06, while the 13790F came out on 2023-02-09. Both are active in production, have locked multipliers, use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, and do not support ECC memory. The 265F has a part number of SRQCV, while the 13790F is SRMBZ.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The i7-13790F uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, built on Intel’s 10 nm process. Its die size is 257 mm², and its transistor count is not listed in the data.

The process node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 10 nm represents a major generational leap in transistor density and power efficiency. The 265F’s smaller process allows it to pack 20 cores without hyperthreading, while the 13790F uses 16 cores with hyperthreading to reach 24 threads. This explains why the 265F can achieve higher performance at the same 65W TDP — the newer node is far more efficient.

Cache architecture also differs by design. The 265F uses larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (192 KB and 3 MB per core, respectively) compared to the 13790F’s 80 KB and 2 MB per core. However, the 13790F has more shared L3 (33 MB vs 30 MB). The larger L3 on the 13790F, combined with its hyperthreading, likely contributes to its wins in compression and integer math, where larger working sets can fit in the shared cache.

Manufacturing differences extend to the foundry: TSMC makes the 265F, while Intel makes the 13790F. This is a notable strategic shift for Intel, and the data suggests the TSMC 3 nm process delivers a clear performance advantage in most workloads. The 265F’s lack of integrated graphics is also an architectural choice, whereas the 13790F’s integrated graphics status is undefined in the data — it may or may not have an iGPU.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the stronger processor in 15 of 17 tests, with an average benchmark score of 64438 versus the i7-13790F’s 63080. For anyone building a system for rendering, scientific computing, encryption, or general high-performance desktop use, the 265F is the better choice. Its 18.6% lead in Cinebench multi-core and 57.3% lead in floating point math are decisive, and its 12.8% single-thread advantage makes it superior even in lightly threaded applications. The 3 nm process and 20-core design clearly outperform the older 10 nm Raptor Lake part at the same 65W power envelope.

The i7-13790F is not obsolete, but its appeal is narrow. It wins data compression by 10.7% and integer math by 8.8%, making it a reasonable pick for workloads dominated by those operations. It also supports DDR4 memory, which could be a consideration for builders reusing existing RAM, and it has 3 MB more shared L3 cache. However, its lower single-thread and multi-thread scores, combined with a higher launch MSRP of $441 versus $379, make it difficult to recommend for general use. The 265F also has a more recent release date and a smaller die, suggesting longer-term platform support.

The practical advice is simple: pick the Ultra 7 265F for almost any build. The only scenario where the 13790F makes sense is if the workload is specifically compression-heavy or integer-heavy, and even then, the 265F’s overall performance lead means the 13790F is a niche choice. Both CPUs sit at the 93rd percentile, so there is no wrong answer for most users — but the data consistently favors the newer Arrow Lake part.