In Atomfall, the Core i9-7920X is slightly slower than the Core Ultra 7 265F and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $62 more expensive!
Core i9-7920X
No clear advantages
Core Ultra 7 265F
- Up to 14% faster in Atomfall – 245 vs 214 FPS
- Up to 14% faster in Atomfall
- Is 7 years and 3 months newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Sep 10, 2017
- Is 7 years and 3 months newer
- Up to 18% cheaper – $288.00 vs $349.95
- Up to 18% cheaper
- Up to 28% better value in Atomfall – $1.17 vs $1.63/FPS
- Up to 28% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 54% less energy – 65 vs 140 Watts
- Consumes up to 54% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i9-7920X vs Core Ultra 7 265F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i9-7920X
Sep 10th, 2017
Average FPS
214 FPS
87%
Min 1% FPS
161 FPS
88%
Price, $
$349.95
82%
Value, $/FPS
$1.63/FPS
72%
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 i9-7920X vs Core Ultra 7 265F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i9-7920X vs Core Ultra 7 265F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i9-7920X
Sep 10th, 2017
Cores
12-core
60%
L3 Cache
16.5 MB
55%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.4 GHz
83%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
42%
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
83%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i9-7920X Sep 10th, 2017 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265F Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 10th, 2017 | Released | Jan 7th, 2025 |
| $1,199.00 | MSRP | $379.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2066 | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 140 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
