In Atomfall, the Core i7-620M is slower than the Core Ultra 7 265F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i7-620M
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core Ultra 7 265F
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall – 245 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall
- Is 15 years newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 15 years newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i7-620M vs Core Ultra 7 265F: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
184 FPS
100%
Price, $
$288
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.17/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-620M vs Core Ultra 7 265F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-620M vs Core Ultra 7 265F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-620M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
10%
L3 Cache
4 MB
13%
Base Frequency
2.677 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
63%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
17%
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
90%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-620M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265F Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Released | Jan 7th, 2025 |
$332.00 | MSRP | $379.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1288 | Socket | LGA1851 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
