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

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX and Intel Core i7-13790F are remarkably close in overall average benchmark score, with the Ultra 7 265HX leading by a mere 0.1%. However, the data reveals a distinct split: the Ultra 7 265HX dominates in Cinebench and several PassMark workloads, while the i7-13790F holds clear advantages in integer math and data compression. The choice hinges on specific workload priorities.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the stronger processor. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench benchmark, with margins ranging from 6.6% to 96.1%. Its average benchmark score of 63173 slightly edges out the i7-13790F's 63080. The Ultra 7 265HX is the pick for single-threaded responsiveness, floating-point workloads, encryption, and most multi-threaded rendering tasks.

The Intel Core i7-13790F, despite losing the overall match, is not without merit. It wins in PassMark integer math by 16.2% and data compression by 9.8%, plus a narrow 1.3% win in physics. These are significant for specific professional or scientific workloads. However, its losses in nearly every other category, particularly the 14.8% deficit in all Cinebench tests, make it the secondary choice for general-purpose computing.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from Intel. The Core Ultra 7 265HX is built on Arrow Lake-HX architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, packing 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. It features 20 cores and 20 threads with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache layout is 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. It is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 2114 socket with a 55 W TDP, supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The Core i7-13790F uses the older Raptor Lake-S architecture on Intel's 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die. It has 16 cores and 24 threads, with a lower base clock of 2.10 GHz and a slightly lower boost of 5.20 GHz. Its cache is smaller per core (80 KB L1, 2 MB L2) but larger in shared L3 at 33 MB. It is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1700, has a higher 65 W TDP, and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. It has no integrated graphics, making the 265HX's iGPU a significant functional advantage for systems without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Core i7-13790F's 5.20 GHz.

Q: Does the Core i7-13790F have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Core i7-13790F has no integrated graphics (listed as null), whereas the Core Ultra 7 265HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Q: How do their multi-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX scores 40642, which is 14.8% higher than the Core i7-13790F's 35404.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. The 265HX has more cores, but the i7-13790F has more threads due to hyperthreading.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265HX has a 55 W TDP, which is 10 W lower than the Core i7-13790F's 65 W TDP.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core i7-13790F win by the largest margin?

A: The Core i7-13790F wins PassMark integer math by 16.2%, scoring 151416 compared to the 265HX's 126954.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 3 nm (TSMC) vs 10 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 17,800 million vs null (not specified)
• Die Size: 243 mm² vs 257 mm²
• Cores: 20 vs 16
• Threads: 20 vs 24
• Base Clock: 2.60 GHz vs 2.10 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.30 GHz vs 5.20 GHz
• TDP: 55 W vs 65 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 2114 vs Intel Socket 1700
• L1 Cache: 192 KB per core vs 80 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 3 MB per core vs 2 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 30 MB shared vs 33 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR5 only vs DDR4 and DDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s vs null (not specified)
• Integrated Graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU vs none
• Market Segment: Mobile vs Desktop
• Release Date: 2025-01-12 vs 2023-02-09
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes vs No
• Part Number: SRVFH vs SRMBZ

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ultra 7 265HX's most dominant victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 406 against the i7-13790F's 207 — a 96.1% advantage. This indicates a massive lead in a specific type of integer-heavy mathematical computation. Floating-point math also shows a strong 46.2% win (161605 vs 110512), and data encryption sees a 24.5% improvement (39472 vs 31703).

In Cinebench, the story is consistent: the 265HX wins every single-core and multi-core test by exactly 14.8% (or 14.9% for R15 single-core). This includes R23 multi-core (40642 vs 35404) and R23 single-core (5737 vs 4998). The extended instructions benchmark shows a 17% win for the 265HX (40741 vs 34828). PassMark multi-thread and single-thread tests also favor the 265HX, with 7.3% and 6.8% margins respectively.

The i7-13790F's wins are concentrated in three areas. Its largest is integer math, winning 151416 to 126954 for a 16.2% margin. It also wins data compression with 567473 against 511817 (a 9.8% lead), and physics with a narrow 3017 to 2978 (1.3% margin). These results show that the i7-13790F retains a performance edge in specific legacy or integer-centric workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX is the clear winner for most modern compute scenarios. Its 14.8% lead across all Cinebench tests makes it the better choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any software relying on multi-threaded CPU rendering. The 46.2% win in floating-point math points to advantages in scientific simulations, audio processing, and certain AI workloads. The 24.5% encryption win suits it for security-focused tasks like VPNs, full-disk encryption, and secure communications. Its integrated graphics provide a fallback display output that the i7-13790F lacks entirely, making it a more versatile platform for compact or mobile systems. The 96.1% prime number win, while niche, signals exceptional performance for cryptographic key generation or similar math-heavy algorithms.

Intel Core i7-13790F wins in a narrower set of use cases. Its 16.2% lead in integer math makes it preferable for specific database operations, financial modeling, or legacy software optimized for integer arithmetic. The 9.8% win in data compression favors it for file archiving, backup software, and some data storage scenarios. The 1.3% physics win, while small, could slightly favor it in certain physics simulation engines. Its larger 33 MB L3 cache and support for DDR4 memory might also make it a simpler drop-in upgrade for existing Socket 1700 platforms, though this is not reflected in the measured benchmark data. For users with workloads strictly matching these three categories, the i7-13790F holds a measurable, though limited, advantage.