Intel Core i9-13900KS vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 and Intel Core i9-13900KS are two desktop processors that occupy different positions in Intel’s lineup, yet their average benchmark scores land them within 0.2% of each other. The Core Ultra 7 265 posts an average benchmark score of 64112, while the Core i9-13900KS trails slightly at 63990, a delta of 0.2%. Both sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they belong to the same performance tier in aggregate. The head-to-head data, however, tells a far more lopsided story: the Core i9-13900KS wins 15 of 17 benchmark comparisons, while the Core Ultra 7 265 takes just 2. This divergence between aggregate scores and individual test outcomes underscores how differently these two chips handle varied workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i9-13900KS dominates the Cinebench suite across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5196 against the Core Ultra 7 265’s 4195, a 19.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 733 versus 592, again 19.3% in favor of the i9. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20 and R23, with the i9 leading by 19.3% in both multicore and single-core runs. In R20 multicore, the i9 posts 21650 versus 17482; in R20 single-core, it hits 3056 versus 2467. The R23 results show 51548 versus 41624 multicore and 7277 versus 5876 single-core. The consistency of that 19.3% delta across every Cinebench version indicates a fundamental performance gap rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results widen the margin in several categories. The i9’s data compression score of 814838 crushes the Ultra 7’s 505578, a 38% lead—the largest single delta in the head-to-head set. Integer math also favors the i9 heavily: 211027 versus 136683, a 35.2% gap. Random string sorting goes to the i9 at 90257 versus 62044, a 31.3% difference. The i9 also wins multithread (60644 versus 48915, 19.3% ahead), physics (3441 versus 3019, 12.3% ahead), data encryption (47772 versus 39431, 17.5% ahead), and extended instructions (48217 versus 39768, 17.5% ahead). Even single-thread performance, where the Ultra 7’s newer architecture might be expected to close the gap, favors the i9 by 1.7% (4712 versus 4632).

The Core Ultra 7 265’s two wins are notable for their magnitude. In find prime numbers, it scores 412 against the i9’s 257, a 60.3% advantage—the biggest win for either chip in any test. Floating point math also goes to the Ultra 7: 172546 versus 154805, an 11.5% lead. These wins suggest the Arrow Lake architecture has specific strengths in integer-heavy prime computation and floating-point throughput, even while trailing in most other categories. However, with only two wins out of seventeen comparisons, the overall picture is one of i9 dominance in the vast majority of workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Core Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core i9-13900KS uses Raptor Lake on Intel’s 10 nm process, with a die size of 257 mm² and no transistor count listed. The process node difference is stark: 3 nm versus 10 nm, representing two generations of fabrication technology. This explains why the Ultra 7 can achieve competitive aggregate performance despite lower raw scores in most tests—the smaller node allows for different design trade-offs.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning no hyperthreading—each core handles one thread. The i9-13900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads, with 8 of those cores supporting hyperthreading. This gives the i9 a 12-core advantage in thread count, which directly contributes to its multicore wins. Cache layouts also diverge: the Ultra 7 has 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, with 30 MB shared L3. The i9 has 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, but a larger 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may help explain its wins in prime number and floating-point tests, where cache locality matters.

Memory support differs substantially. The Ultra 7 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with a lower DDR5 bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra 7 lacks ECC memory support, while the i9 includes it. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Ultra 7 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units, while the i9 has UHD Graphics 770. The Ultra 7 has a locked multiplier, whereas the i9’s multiplier is unlocked for overclocking. Clock speeds also favor the i9: its base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 6.00 GHz, while the Ultra 7 sits at 2.40 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The Ultra 7’s TDP is 65 watts, compared to the i9’s 150 watts—a 85-watt difference that reflects the i9’s higher power draw for its performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average benchmark score of 64112, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core i9-13900KS’s 63990.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons does each processor win?

A: The Core i9-13900KS wins 15 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core Ultra 7 265 wins 2.

Q: In which test does the Core Ultra 7 265 have its largest advantage?

A: The Ultra 7 leads by 60.3% in the passmark find prime numbers test, scoring 412 versus the i9’s 257.

Q: Does the Core i9-13900KS support more memory types than the Core Ultra 7 265?

A: Yes. The i9 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core i9-13900KS has a TDP of 150 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Core Ultra 7 265 and the Core i9-13900KS are at the 95th percentile among all CPUs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i9-13900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clock speeds differ: 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7 versus 3.20 GHz for the i9. Boost clocks also differ: 5.30 GHz versus 6.00 GHz. The Ultra 7’s TDP is 65 watts, compared to the i9’s 150 watts. They use different sockets: Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7, Intel Socket 1700 for the i9. The process node is 3 nm for the Ultra 7 and 10 nm for the i9, with different foundries (TSMC versus Intel). Die size varies slightly: 243 mm² versus 257 mm². Cache configurations differ: L1 is 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core versus 2 MB per core, and L3 is 30 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. Memory support differs, with the Ultra 7 limited to DDR5 and the i9 supporting DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Ultra 7 at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the i9. Integrated graphics differ: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU versus UHD Graphics 770. The multiplier is locked on the Ultra 7 and unlocked on the i9. The Ultra 7 launched with an MSRP of $394, while the i9 launched with an MSRP of $699.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i9-13900KS is the clear winner in multi-threaded productivity workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 51548 is 19.3% ahead of the Ultra 7’s 41624, and the same margin holds in R15 and R20 multicore tests. Data compression shows the i9 at its strongest: 814838 versus 505578, a 38% lead. Integer math also heavily favors the i9, with a 35.2% advantage. For users running video rendering, code compilation, or database workloads that rely on integer operations and compression, the i9’s 32 threads and 36 MB L3 cache provide a substantial edge. The i9 also wins in random string sorting by 31.3%, suggesting advantages in sorting-heavy data tasks.

The Core Ultra 7 265’s wins are more specialized but nonetheless significant. Its 60.3% lead in find prime numbers indicates a strong performance in prime-number computation, which can benefit cryptographic or mathematical workloads. The 11.5% lead in floating point math suggests the Ultra 7 handles scientific computing and simulation tasks better than the i9. The Ultra 7’s lower TDP of 65 watts versus 150 watts also means it achieves these wins while drawing less than half the power, making it the more efficient choice in those specific workloads. For users whose primary tasks involve floating-point-heavy simulations or prime-number calculations, the Ultra 7 offers a measurable performance advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core i9-13900KS should be the choice for users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, integer math, compression, and general productivity tasks. It wins 15 of 17 comparisons, with leads exceeding 30% in several categories. Its 32 threads, higher clock speeds (6.00 GHz boost), and larger L3 cache make it the stronger all-around performer for most demanding applications. The 19.3% consistent lead across all Cinebench versions reinforces this conclusion.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the better option for workloads that specifically rely on floating-point math or prime-number computation, where it leads by 11.5% and 60.3% respectively. Its 3 nm process node and lower 65-watt TDP also make it a more power-efficient processor in those scenarios. For users with workloads dominated by those specific operations, the Ultra 7’s wins are not marginal—they are substantial. The aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical (64112 versus 63990, a 0.2% difference), meaning either processor will deliver comparable overall performance. The decision ultimately hinges on whether the i9’s broad multi-threaded dominance or the Ultra 7’s specialized efficiency wins matter more for the intended use case.