Intel Core i9-13900T vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and the Intel Core i9-13900T are two desktop processors from different Intel generations. The Ultra 7 265F belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with an Arrow Lake architecture, while the i9-13900T is a Raptor Lake part from Core 13th Gen. In the database, the Ultra 7 265F records an average benchmark score of 64438 and sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The i9-13900T records 61723 and sits at the 92nd percentile. Across 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Ultra 7 265F wins 14 and the i9-13900T wins 3. The Ultra 7 265F's closest rival in the database is the Core Ultra 7 265, which averages 64640, a 0.3% difference. The i9-13900T's closest rival is the Core i9-13900K, which averages 61766, a 0.1% difference.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F records an average benchmark score of 64438, while the Intel Core i9-13900T records 61723. The Ultra 7 265F also sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, one point above the i9-13900T's 92nd percentile.

Q: How many cores and threads does each CPU offer?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core i9-13900T has 24 cores and 32 threads, giving the i9 more physical cores and additional threads.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Core i9-13900T supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: Do either of these CPUs include integrated graphics?

A: The Core i9-13900T includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F launched at $379, and the Core i9-13900T launched at $549.

Q: Which CPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Core i9-13900T wins 3.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, and integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core i9-13900T uses the Raptor Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a 257 mm² die. The Ultra 7 265F is a 20-core, 20-thread part, while the i9-13900T is a 24-core, 32-thread part. The i9's extra threads come from hyperthreading, which the Ultra 7 does not use.

Cache layouts differ as well. The 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 i9-13900T has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. So the Ultra 7 has larger per-core caches, while the i9 has a larger shared L3 pool.

Memory support also differs. The Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i9-13900T supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel. The i9 adds ECC memory support, which the Ultra 7 lacks. The i9 also includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 has no integrated graphics.

The two CPUs use different sockets: the Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851, and the i9-13900T uses Intel Socket 1700. The base clock of the Ultra 7 265F is 2.40 GHz, while the i9-13900T has a base clock of 1100.00 MHz. Both share the same boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The TDP also differs: 65 W for the Ultra 7 265F and 35 W for the i9-13900T. The Ultra 7 265F was released on 2025-01-06, while the i9-13900T was released on 2023-01-03. Both are active production parts for the desktop market, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear pattern. The Core Ultra 7 265F wins every Cinebench test by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4231 against 3680, a 15% lead. In R15 singlecore, it scores 597 against 519, also 15%. R20 multicore shows 17631 against 15337, a 15% lead, and R20 singlecore shows 2488 against 2165, a 14.9% lead. R23 multicore shows 41980 against 36517, a 15% lead, and R23 singlecore shows 5926 against 5155, a 15% lead. These results indicate that the Ultra 7 265F holds a consistent advantage in both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads.

The Passmark results are more varied. The Ultra 7 265F wins the majority, but the i9-13900T takes three tests. The largest win for the Ultra 7 265F is in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 416 against 175, a 137.7% lead. In floating point math, the Ultra 7 scores 173855 against 108779, a 59.8% lead. In extended instructions, it scores 39235 against 29719, a 32% lead. In physics, it scores 3172 against 2497, a 27% lead. In data encryption, it scores 39468 against 34415, a 14.7% lead. In multithread, it scores 49410 against 43036, a 14.8% lead. In single thread, it scores 4750 against 4177, a 13.7% lead.

The i9-13900T wins three Passmark tests. In integer math, it scores 157324 against 138078, a 12.2% lead. In data compression, it scores 538254 against 507018, a 5.8% lead. In random string sorting, it scores 63358 against 62439, a 1.5% lead. These wins are narrower than the Ultra 7's biggest wins, and they are concentrated in integer and data-manipulation workloads.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Core Ultra 7 265F as the stronger overall processor. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including all six Cinebench tests and the majority of Passmark tests. Its average benchmark score of 64438 is higher than the i9-13900T's 61723, and it sits at the 93rd percentile versus the i9's 92nd. The Ultra 7 265F is the better choice for rendering, floating point math, encryption, physics, and single-threaded performance.

The Core i9-13900T is not without strengths. It wins in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. It also offers ECC memory support, integrated UHD Graphics 770, and a lower 35 W TDP compared to the Ultra 7's 65 W. For workloads that rely on integer arithmetic or data compression, or for systems that need ECC memory or a built-in GPU, the i9-13900T remains a viable option.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 7 265F | Intel Core i9-13900T |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 20 | 24 |

| Threads | 20 | 32 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 1100.00 MHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Process node | 3 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | not specified |

| Die size | 243 mm² | 257 mm² |

| L1 cache | 192 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | not specified |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Release date | 2025-01-06 | 2023-01-03 |

| Part number | SRQCV | not specified |

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265F wins in rendering and compute-heavy workloads. All six Cinebench tests go to the Ultra 7 by roughly 15%. In Passmark, it wins data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, multithread, physics, and single thread. The largest margin is in find prime numbers at 137.7%, followed by floating point math at 59.8%. This makes the Ultra 7 265F the better fit for scientific computing, encryption, physics simulation, and any workload that stresses floating point or single-threaded performance.

The Core i9-13900T wins in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting. Its integer math score of 157324 beats the Ultra 7's 138078 by 12.2%. Its data compression score of 538254 beats 507018 by 5.8%. Its random string sorting score of 63358 beats 62439 by 1.5%. These are data-processing and integer-heavy tasks. The i9-13900T also brings ECC memory support, integrated UHD Graphics 770, and a 35 W TDP, which suit systems that need error-correcting memory, a display output without a discrete GPU, or lower power draw.