Intel Core 7 251TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. Despite the higher thread count on the 251TE, the 265KF delivers substantially higher multi-threaded scores across all Cinebench and Passmark tests.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF leads by a wide margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 265KF scores 7021 versus 3602 for the 251TE, a delta of 48.7%. Passmark single-thread results show 4928 versus 3568, a 27.6% advantage for the 265KF.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF has an average benchmark score of 71910, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 251TE averages 41650, sitting in the 88th percentile. This gives the 265KF a roughly 72.7% higher average score.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF does not. The 251TE also supports both DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the 265KF supports only DDR5.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Core 7 251TE includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core Ultra 7 265KF has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A), which means it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core 7 251TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not pin-compatible and require different motherboards.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design generations and foundry approaches. The Core 7 251TE is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process from Intel's own fabs. The Core Ultra 7 265KF uses the Arrow Lake-S architecture on a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The manufacturing difference is significant: the 251TE uses a larger 10 nm node, while the 265KF uses a much smaller 3 nm node, which contributes to its efficiency and performance characteristics.

The transistor counts also differ substantially. The Core Ultra 7 265KF integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 7 251TE has no listed transistor count but uses a 215 mm² die. The 265KF packs more transistors into a slightly larger physical area, enabled by the denser 3 nm process.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, indicating the presence of hyper-threading that doubles the thread count on some cores. The 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning it runs one thread per core without hyper-threading. Despite fewer threads, the 265KF's newer architecture and higher clock speeds allow it to outperform the 251TE in every recorded benchmark.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The 251TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 265KF uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The 265KF has more per-core cache but less total L3, which reflects a different design philosophy optimized for per-core performance rather than aggregate pool size.

Clock speeds favor the 265KF on both base and boost. The 251TE runs at a 1.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.40 GHz. The 265KF has a 3.90 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.50 GHz. The higher base clock on the 265KF is particularly notable, as it sustains much higher performance under load without requiring boost headroom.

The 265KF has an unlocked multiplier, while the 251TE does not. This makes the 265KF the overclocking-oriented part. The 265KF also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, versus 16 lanes on the 251TE. Both support Gen 5, but the 265KF offers more direct CPU connectivity.

Memory support differs as well. The 251TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The 265KF supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the 251TE but not on the 265KF.

The thermal design power is another major split. The 251TE has a TDP of 45 watts, making it a low-power desktop part. The 265KF has a TDP of 125 watts, reflecting its higher performance envelope. This TDP gap explains much of the performance difference, as the 265KF is designed to draw more power and sustain higher clock rates.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and was released on 2024-10-23. The Core 7 251TE was released on 2025-01-12. Both are active production parts in the desktop segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database. The margin varies by workload, from a modest 12.3% lead in integer math to a dominant 71.2% lead in prime number finding.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 265KF scores 5013 versus 2572 for the 251TE, a 48.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 707 versus 362, also a 48.8% difference. Cinebench R20 follows the same shape: 20889 versus 10717 multicore, and 2948 versus 1512 single-core, both at 48.7%. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 49736 versus 25518, and single-core 7021 versus 3602, again 48.7%. The consistency of this delta across all three Cinebench versions indicates a fixed architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

Passmark integer math is the closest contest. The 265KF scores 143351 versus 125739 for the 251TE, a 12.3% lead. This is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Integer workloads tend to scale with core count and per-core efficiency, and while the 265KF still wins, the 251TE's 24 cores and 32 threads narrow the gap in this specific test.

The widest gaps appear in specialized workloads. Passmark find prime numbers shows 486 versus 140, a 71.2% difference. Extended instructions show 54513 versus 16974, a 68.9% gap. These tests emphasize the 265KF's newer instruction execution capabilities and higher per-core throughput.

Data compression and encryption show large leads for the 265KF. Data compression scores 666589 versus 334399, a 49.8% advantage. Data encryption scores 48198 versus 22176, a 54% lead. Floating point math delivers 189431 versus 85607, a 54.8% gap. Physics simulation scores 3633 versus 1938, a 46.7% lead.

Random string sorting favors the 265KF at 79735 versus 39643, a 50.3% difference. Passmark multithread scores 58518 versus 30022, a 48.7% lead. Single-thread Passmark shows 4928 versus 3568, a 27.6% advantage. The single-thread gap is smaller than the multi-thread gap, which makes sense given the 251TE's higher thread count partially compensating for its lower per-core performance.

The nearest rival data places each processor in its respective competitive tier. The 251TE's closest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H with an average score of 41621 and a delta of 0.1%, the Core i7-14650HX at 41576 with a 0.2% delta, and the Core i7-12850HX at 41779 with a -0.3% delta. The 265KF's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at 71797 with a 0.2% delta, the Intel Xeon 6517P at 72350 with a -0.6% delta, and the Intel Xeon 6724P at 72396 with a -0.7% delta. This shows the 265KF competes at a much higher absolute performance level.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF is the stronger processor in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 71910 versus 41650 for the Core 7 251TE represents a 72.7% overall advantage. The 265KF also sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 88th percentile for the 251TE.

The Core 7 251TE does retain specific advantages that matter for certain use cases. It supports ECC memory, which the 265KF does not. It includes integrated graphics via UHD Graphics 770, while the 265KF has none. It draws only 45 watts TDP versus 125 watts for the 265KF, making it suitable for low-power or passively cooled systems. It also supports DDR4 memory, which can be a cost consideration for platform builds, though pricing is not part of this analysis.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is the choice for workloads that demand maximum performance. Its 17-for-17 sweep across all head-to-head benchmarks, including a 48.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and a 27.6% lead in Passmark single-thread, makes it the clear pick for compute-intensive applications. The unlocked multiplier adds overclocking headroom that the 251TE cannot offer.

The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265KF is $379, and the launch MSRP for the Core 7 251TE is $384.

For systems requiring error-correcting memory, onboard graphics, or minimal power draw, the Core 7 251TE is the only viable option between these two. For raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and per-core performance, the Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates. The 251TE's higher core and thread counts do not translate into benchmark wins because the 265KF's newer architecture and higher clocks overcome the thread deficit in every test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 251TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF |

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

| Cores | 24 | 20 |

| Threads | 32 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $384 | $379 |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-10-23 |

| Part Number | SRQAXQ5ZG | SRQCU |