Intel Core Ultra 7 265K vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. Both processors do not use Hyper-Threading technology, so core and thread counts are equal for each.

Q: What is the difference in base and boost clock speeds?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The desktop part runs at higher clocks in both metrics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70,879, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average score of 67,469. The desktop chip leads by roughly 3,400 points, and both sit at the 94th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 275HX has a shared L3 cache of 36 MB, while the Core Ultra 7 265K has a shared L3 cache of 30 MB. The mobile processor holds a 6 MB advantage in this tier.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core Ultra 7 265K supports ECC memory, but the Core Ultra 9 275HX does not. Both support dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the release dates for these two chips?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K was released on October 23, 2024. The Core Ultra 9 275HX was released later, on January 12, 2025. Both are currently listed with active production status.

The Verdict

The data splits these two processors along platform lines rather than raw capability. The Core Ultra 7 265K wins 15 of the 19 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including every Geekbench test and most Passmark workloads. It holds strong leads in single-core performance, with a 112% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core. That score is an outlier, but the pattern holds across other single-threaded tests. The desktop chip leads by 10.4% in Geekbench single-core and by 4.6% in Passmark single-thread.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX wins only 4 benchmarks, but those wins are concentrated in specific workloads. It takes Cinebench R15 multicore with a 10.7% margin, Cinebench R23 single-core by 8.3%, Passmark floating point math by 0.8%, and Passmark integer math by 7.7%. The mobile chip also has more cores, 24 versus 20, and a larger L3 cache at 36 MB versus 30 MB.

Who should pick which? The Core Ultra 7 265K is the choice for desktop users who need broad application performance, especially in single-threaded tasks and general productivity. Its 11% lead in Geekbench multicore and 5.1% lead in Passmark multithread make it the stronger all-rounder. The Core Ultra 9 275HX suits workloads that favor integer math and floating point math, where it wins by 7.7% and 0.8% respectively, or scenarios where its lower 55 W TDP matters more than peak performance. The desktop chip carries a 125 W TDP, which is a substantial difference in power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win belongs to the Core Ultra 7 265K in Cinebench R15 single-core. It scores 708 against 334 for the Core Ultra 9 275HX, a 112% advantage. This is an extreme outlier, but it signals a fundamental difference in how the two chips handle lightly threaded workloads. The desktop part also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 5.1%, scoring 2,953 versus 2,809.

In multicore tests, the results are closer. The Core Ultra 7 265K wins Cinebench R20 multicore by 5.1% with 20,918 versus 19,899. Cinebench R23 multicore is nearly tied, with the desktop chip at 35,850 and the mobile chip at 35,589, a delta of just 0.7%. The Core Ultra 9 275HX takes Cinebench R15 multicore by 10.7%, scoring 5,619.5 versus 5,020.

Geekbench results favor the Core Ultra 7 265K clearly. Multicore shows 23,085 versus 20,795, an 11% lead. Single-core shows 2,713 versus 2,458, a 10.4% lead. These are broad synthetic workloads, and the desktop chip wins both by double digits.

Passmark paints a mixed picture. The Core Ultra 7 265K wins data compression by 9.4%, extended instructions by 15.6%, find prime numbers by 9.6%, multithread by 5.1%, physics by 11.8%, random string sorting by 7.3%, and single-thread by 4.6%. It also wins data encryption by a narrow 2.4%. The Core Ultra 9 275HX counters in integer math, scoring 155,218 versus 143,242, a 7.7% win, and in floating point math, scoring 191,186 versus 189,629, a 0.8% win.

The overall record is 15 wins for the Core Ultra 7 265K and 4 wins for the Core Ultra 9 275HX. The desktop chip dominates the count, but the mobile chip shows strength in specific compute patterns.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 3.90 GHz for the desktop part versus 2.70 GHz for the mobile part. Boost clocks are closer, at 5.50 GHz versus 5.40 GHz.

The TDP ratings are far apart. The Core Ultra 7 265K has a TDP of 125 W, while the Core Ultra 9 275HX has a TDP of 55 W. The socket types are also different: the desktop chip uses Intel Socket 1851, and the mobile chip uses Intel BGA 2114. This means they are not interchangeable in any system.

The L3 cache differs, with the Core Ultra 9 275HX carrying 36 MB versus 30 MB for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache sizes: 192 KB per core and 3 MB per core respectively. ECC memory support is present on the desktop chip but absent on the mobile chip. The market segment also differs: Desktop for the 265K and Mobile for the 275HX.

The Core Ultra 7 265K has a launch MSRP of $394. The Core Ultra 9 275HX has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are unlocked, meaning the multiplier can be adjusted.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Arrow Lake architecture and are built on the same 3 nm process node at TSMC. They also share the same transistor count of 17,800 million and the same die size of 243 mm². The integrated graphics are identical: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs. PCIe support is also the same at Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The key architectural difference lies in the silicon configuration. The Core Ultra 7 265K is codenamed Arrow Lake-S and targets the desktop segment. The Core Ultra 9 275HX is codenamed Arrow Lake-HX and targets the mobile segment. Despite the shared architecture, the mobile part uses more cores, 24 versus 20, and more L3 cache, 36 MB versus 30 MB.

The base clock difference is notable: the desktop chip runs at 3.90 GHz, while the mobile chip runs at 2.70 GHz. This reflects the power envelope difference between the two platforms. The mobile chip compensates with a higher core count and larger cache, but the desktop chip relies on higher clock speeds to drive performance.

Both processors support DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The desktop chip additionally supports ECC memory. Both are unlocked for overclocking, which is unusual for a mobile part but consistent with the HX designation. The generation labels differ slightly: Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) for the desktop and Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-HX) for the mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265K wins in most general-purpose workloads. It leads in Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore, all Geekbench tests, and the majority of Passmark tests. Specifically, it wins data compression by 9.4%, extended instructions by 15.6%, find prime numbers by 9.6%, physics by 11.8%, and random string sorting by 7.3%. Its 11% lead in Geekbench multicore suggests better all-core scaling in mixed workloads. Users running desktop applications, content creation tools, or compilation tasks should favor this chip.

The Core Ultra 9 275HX wins in Cinebench R15 multicore by 10.7%, Cinebench R23 single-core by 8.3%, Passmark floating point math by 0.8%, and Passmark integer math by 7.7%. The integer math win is the most substantial, with a score of 155,218 versus 143,242. This points to strong performance in arithmetic-heavy, integer-based tasks. The floating point math win is narrow, but it shows the mobile chip can hold its own in scientific or simulation workloads.

The power envelope is a decisive factor. The Core Ultra 9 275HX operates at 55 W TDP versus 125 W for the Core Ultra 7 265K. For mobile users, this means the 275HX delivers near-desktop performance in many tests while consuming less than half the power budget. The Core Ultra 7 265K, with its 125 W TDP, is better suited for desktop systems with adequate cooling and power delivery.

In single-threaded performance, the desktop chip wins most tests, including Geekbench by 10.4% and Passmark by 4.6%. The mobile chip counters with an 8.3% win in Cinebench R23 single-core. This suggests the 275HX can be competitive in lightly threaded tasks despite its lower base clock. The 265K remains the safer choice for single-thread dominance across the broader test suite.

The 20-core versus 24-core difference explains the mixed multicore results. The mobile chip has more cores, but the desktop chip has higher clocks. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the result is nearly tied at 0.7% apart, showing that the extra cores on the 275HX nearly offset the clock disadvantage. In Passmark multithread, the desktop chip wins by 5.1%, indicating its clock advantage matters more in that workload.