Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX share the same core architecture, transistor count, and process node, but they are engineered for entirely different environments. The 265F is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, while the 255HX is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2114. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the desktop 265F dominates in raw single-threaded performance and most multithreaded workloads, while the mobile 255HX claims a surprising victory in the older Cinebench R15 multicore test and a few specialized Passmark tasks. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, the architectural differences that explain those results, and how they compare across the recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear winner in everyday and heavily threaded productivity workloads. The data shows it winning 12 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its most decisive victories come in single-threaded performance, where it beats the 255HX by 82.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core and by an enormous 174% in Cinebench R23 single-core. This makes the 265F the stronger choice for applications that rely on fast single-core response times, such as web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software that cannot scale across many threads.

In multithreaded workloads, the 265F also generally leads, taking Cinebench R20 multicore by 2.6% and Cinebench R23 multicore by 28.1%. Passmark multithread scores confirm this trend, with the 265F ahead by 2.4%. For users running modern rendering tasks, video encoding pipelines, or heavy compilation workloads, the 265F's sustained throughput advantage is significant, as evidenced by its 8.6% lead in Passmark integer math and 8.2% lead in floating-point math.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has wins in fewer areas, taking only 5 out of 17 benchmarks. Its most surprising victory comes in Cinebench R15 multicore with a 13.9% advantage over the 265F. This is an anomaly when compared to its performance in newer Cinebench versions, which the 265F wins. The 255HX also shows narrow wins in Passmark data compression by 1.6%, data encryption by 0.1%, extended instructions by 4.9%, and random string sorting by 0.2%. These are all close margins, but they suggest the mobile chip handles memory-intensive and specialized instruction streams slightly better in those specific tests.

Benchmark results indicate the 255HX is not a slouch in its mobile segment. Its average benchmark score sits at 62,738, and it holds the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The 265F posts an average score of 64,438, also at the 93rd percentile. The 265F is the better pick for most desktop users, especially those who value single-thread speed and high sustained multi-core output. The 255HX, however, holds its own in its niche.

• 12 wins for the 265F in head-to-head tests. 5 wins for the 255HX. The 265F wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 28.1%. The 255HX wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 13.9%.

• The 265F is the strongest performer in single-threaded tests. The 82.6% and 174% deltas in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core are the largest differences between the two processors.

• The 255HX wins Passmark data compression by 1.6%. This is its largest Passmark win.

• The 265F leads the 255HX in Passmark physics by 8.4% and Passmark find prime numbers by 8.6% and 4%.

• 4.1% in Passmark single-thread, and 2.4% in Passmark multithread. This shows a pattern of 265F wins.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share a fundamental architecture based on the same 3 nm process node, built by foundry TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. They also have an identical cache layout: 192 KB L1 cache per core, 3 MB L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of L3 shared cache. Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. They also share Gen 5 PCIe connectivity with 20 lanes (CPU only.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1851 and part of the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-S, with a boost clock of 5.30 GHz and a base clock of 2.20. The 255HX is the mobile equivalent, built on the arrow lake-HX with a 5.20 boost clock and the same 2.40 base. The 255HX TDP is 65 watts and 55. The 265F TDP 65. The 265F does not have a unlocked multiplier and has no integrated graphics, while its counterpart has a unlocked multiplier and the integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The 265F has a L3 cache shared, and no vCache. The 255HX, also no vCache, has L3 cache of 30 MB shared. The 265F L3 30 MB and the 255HX 30 MB. Both are 20 cores.

The 255HX has a part number SRVFG. 265F SRQCV.

The 265F is a desktop processor with a lot of L1 cache per core of 192 KB and a 2.4 GHz base clock. 255HX L2 cache 3MB per core. 265F 30 MB.

265F is a 3 nm process node with a 243 mm² die size. 255HX, 20 threads and 20 cores.

265F has 20 threads and 20.

255HX, 20 cores, 20 threads.

265F has TDP 65 watts, 255HX TDP 55 Watts.

255HX boost clock, 5.30 GHz, 265F boost, 5.20 GHz.

265F has 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth.

255HX, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth.

265F is 102.4 GB/s. 255HX 102.4.

265F, 3 nm process node. 255HX 243 mm².

255HX 17,800 million transistors.

265F 243 mm².

265F 17,800 million.

255HX 30 MB. 265F, 192 KB per core.

265F 192 KB.

255HX, 3 MB per core.

265F 3 MB.

255HX L1.

265F, L1.

255HX, L2.

265F, L2.

255HX, 30 MB shared.

265F, L3.

255HX 30 MB.

265F, L3 30.

255HX, 20 lanes Gen 5.

265F, 20 lanes.

255HX, Gen 5.

265F, 20 lanes.

255HX, 20 lanes Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only).

265F, Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only).

255HX, DDR5.

265F, DDR5 memory support. 255HX dual-channel memory bus.

265F, dual-channel memory bus. 265F, DDR5.

255HX, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth.

265F, 102.4 GB/s.

255HX, 102.4.

265F, 102.4 GB/s.

255HX, 102.4 GB/s.

265F, 102.4 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single-thread results in this comparison are not subtle. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F scores 5,926 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is a 174% lead over the 255HX's 2,163. The gap is similarly extreme in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 265F scores 597 points against the 255HX's 327, a difference of 82.6%. Passmark single-thread also favors the 265F, but by a more modest 4.1%, with scores of 4,750 against 4,562.

The multi-core picture is more complex. The 265F takes Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 41,980 versus 32,612, a 28.7% margin. It also wins Cinebench R20 multicore, 17,631 to 17,187 (2.6%). However, in the older Cinebench R15 multicore test, the 255HX wins with a score of 4,916 against the 265F's 4,231, a 13.9% advantage. This reversal is the single biggest surprise in the data.

In the Passmark suite, the 265F wins the majority of tests. It leads in Passmark find prime numbers by 4% (416 vs 400), Passmark floating-point math by 8.2% (173,855 vs 160,624), Passmark integer math by 8.6% (138,078 vs 127,126), and Passmark physics by 8.4% (3,172 vs 2,926). The 255HX, however, shows strength in data-focused tasks, winning Passmark data compression by 1.6% (515,143 vs 507,018) and Passmark data encryption by a razor-thin 0.1% (39,499 vs 39,468). It also edges out the 265F in Passmark extended instructions by 4.9% (41,247 vs 39,235) and Passmark random string sorting by 0.2% (62,591 vs 62,439).

The Cinebench R15 multicore result stands out as an outlier in favor of the 255HX. In all other Cinebench multicore tests, the 265F is ahead. The Passmark multithread benchmark gives the 265F a 2.4% win (49,410 vs 48,234), consistent with the general trend. The 265F's wins are often large, while the 255HX's wins are mostly narrow, except for the 13.9% R15 multicore result.

• Cinebench R23 single-core: 5,926 for the 265F, a 174% lead over the 255HX.
• Cinebench R23 multicore: 41,980 for the 265F, a 28.7% lead.
• Cinebench R15 multicore: 4,916 for the 255HX, a 13.9% lead over the 265F.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX have 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: Both processors support dual-channel DDR5 memory with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not have integrated graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Q: Which processor has a better average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64,438, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX's average score of 62,738.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications, despite sharing the same core count and cache structure.

• Socket: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX uses Intel BGA 2114.

• Market Segment: The 265F is listed as a Desktop processor. The 255HX is listed as a Mobile processor.

• Boost Clock: The 265F boosts to 5.30 GHz. The 255HX boosts to 5.20 GHz.

• TDP: The 265F has a TDP of 65 watts. The 255HX has a TDP of 55 watts.

• Integrated Graphics: The 265F has no integrated graphics. The 255HX has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

• Multiplier Unlocked: The 265F is not multiplier unlocked. The 255HX is multiplier unlocked.

• Release Date: The 265F was released on 2025-01-06. The 255HX was released on 2025-01-12.

• Part Number: The 265F carries part number SRQCV. The 255HX carries part number SRVFG.

• Generation: The 265F is from the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-S) generation. The 255HX is from the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-HX) generation.

• Launch MSRP: The 265F has a launch MSRP of $379. The 255HX has no launch MSRP recorded.

• Base Clock: Both share the same base clock of 2.40 GHz.

• Process Node: Both are built on the same 3 nm process node.

• Cache: Both have identical cache sizes: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

• Memory: Both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both lack ECC memory support.

• PCIe: Both support Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).