In Deathloop, the Core i7-950 is slightly slower than the Core Ultra 7 265F. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $257 cheaper!
Core i7-950
- Up to 89% cheaper – $31.00 vs $288.00
- Up to 89% cheaper
- Up to 89% better value in Deathloop – $0.13 vs $1.19/FPS
- Up to 89% better value in Deathloop
Core Ultra 7 265F
- Up to 9% faster in Deathloop – 242 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 9% faster in Deathloop
- Is 15 years and 7 months newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Jun 02, 2009
- Is 15 years and 7 months newer
- Consumes up to 50% less energy – 65 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 50% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i7-950 vs Core Ultra 7 265F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Average FPS
222 FPS
92%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
92%
Price, $
$31
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.13/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Average FPS
242 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
181 FPS
100%
Price, $
$288
10%
Value, $/FPS
$1.19/FPS
11%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-950 vs Core Ultra 7 265F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-950 vs Core Ultra 7 265F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-950
Jun 2nd, 2009
Cores
4-core
20%
L3 Cache
8 MB
27%
Base Frequency
3.066 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
63%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
78%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-950 Jun 2nd, 2009 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265F Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 2nd, 2009 | Released | Jan 7th, 2025 |
| – | MSRP | $379.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 130 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
