Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL are both desktop processors from Intel, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The Core 3 201E is a high-clock, high-power part built on the older Bartlett Lake architecture, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL is a low-power Meteor Lake design with a hybrid core layout. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the Core 3 201E winning all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. This analysis breaks down the architectural differences, benchmark results, and practical implications of those numbers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra uses a hybrid architecture with different core types.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has a TDP of 15 watts. This represents a fourfold difference in thermal design power.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL boosts to 4.20 GHz. The Core 3 also has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz compared to 1.50 GHz.

Q: How do they compare in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Core 3 201E scores 12613, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL scores 8742. This gives the Core 3 a 44.3% advantage in that specific multi-core workload.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 201E has ECC memory support enabled, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics do they use?

A: The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 48EU. The Core Ultra's Arc graphics represent a more recent GPU architecture.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 163 mm². Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a straightforward 4-core, 8-thread design with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, using the Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename. It is built on a 7 nm process node, also by Intel, and uses a hybrid core design. The processor has 8 cores and 10 threads, meaning it combines performance cores and efficiency cores rather than using eight identical cores. Its base clock is much lower at 1.50 GHz, with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The cache configuration differs as well, with 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 memory, with the exact type depending on the motherboard, in a dual-channel configuration, and reaches a higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. However, it does not support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs notably. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra uses Intel Socket 1851. The integrated graphics also differ, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 and Arc Xe-LPG 48EU on the Core Ultra.

The production status for both is Active, and neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the Core Ultra 3 105UL launching earlier on 2024-04-07 and the Core 3 201E launching later on 2025-01-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the Intel Core 3 201E, winning all 17 head-to-head tests against the Core Ultra 3 105UL. The margin varies greatly by workload, from a narrow 3% gap in single-threaded PassMark tests to a 95.9% advantage in extended instruction processing.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core 3 201E delivers consistent wins across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1271 against 881 for the Core Ultra, a 44.3% difference. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 179 versus 124, for a 44.4% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core sees the Core 3 score 5297 against 3671, again a 44.3% lead. The R20 single-core result is 747 versus 518, a 44.2% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 12613 for the Core 3 versus 8742 for the Core Ultra, a 44.3% lead, and the R23 single-core test records 1780 versus 1234, a 44.2% advantage. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural performance difference.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Core 3 201E's strengths are most pronounced. The largest victory comes in extended instructions, where the Core 3 scores 11035 against 5634 for the Core Ultra, a 95.9% advantage. This suggests the Core 3's older but higher-clocked cores handle AVX-style workloads significantly better. Data compression shows the Core 3 at 164160 versus 93961, a 74.7% lead, and random string sorting shows 17783 versus 11179, a 59.1% difference. Physics testing records 1141 against 718, a 58.9% margin. Data encryption shows 8931 versus 6354, a 40.6% advantage. Prime number finding has a smaller gap at 29.5%, with scores of 57 and 44.

The narrowest margins appear in math-heavy workloads. Floating point math scores 33260 for the Core 3 and 30750 for the Core Ultra, an 8.2% difference. Integer math shows 43894 versus 41171, a 6.6% lead for the Core 3. The single-threaded PassMark tests record 3482 versus 3382, a 3% difference, which is the smallest margin in the entire dataset. This near-parity in single-thread performance is notable given the large clock speed difference, suggesting the Core Ultra's newer architecture partially compensates for its lower boost clock.

The aggregate data supports the Core 3 201E's position. Its average benchmark score is 19056, placing it in the 73rd percentile against all CPUs. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has an average score of 13061, sitting in the 68th percentile. The Core 3's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19047 and a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039 with a 0.1% delta. The Core Ultra's closest competitors are the Intel Core i5-8500 with an average score of 13142 and a -0.6% delta, and the Intel Core i7-7700K at 13291 with a -1.7% delta.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the Intel Core 3 201E outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL in every single benchmark test. The Core 3 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, with no test favoring the Core Ultra. The average benchmark score difference is substantial, with the Core 3 at 19056 versus 13061 for the Core Ultra.

The Core 3 201E is the correct choice for workloads that demand raw processing power. Its 60 watt TDP and high boost clock of 4.80 GHz deliver superior results across the board, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark compression and encryption tasks. The 44.3% advantage in multi-core Cinebench tests and the 95.9% lead in extended instructions make it the dominant part for compute-heavy applications. Its 73rd percentile ranking against all CPUs places it well above the Core Ultra's 68th percentile.

The Core Ultra 3 105UL, despite having more cores and threads, cannot match the Core 3's performance due to its much lower clock speeds and 15 watt power envelope. Its 8 cores and 10 threads do not translate into a multi-core win, as the Core 3's 4 cores and 8 threads deliver 44.3% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core scores. The Core Ultra does offer advantages in other areas, such as its newer 7 nm process node, higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and the more recent Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics. It also uses a newer socket, Intel Socket 1851, and supports DDR5 memory. However, for pure CPU benchmark performance, the data does not support selecting the Core Ultra over the Core 3.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category.

The core and thread counts differ: the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads. Clock speeds are drastically different, with the Core 3 running at 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the Core Ultra runs at 1.50 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The TDP differs fourfold, with 60 watts for the Core 3 and 15 watts for the Core Ultra.

The process nodes differ, with the Core 3 on 10 nm and the Core Ultra on 7 nm. The sockets are different: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 and Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra. Cache configurations vary, with the Core 3 using 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3, while the Core Ultra uses 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs, with the Core 3 supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra supports DDR5 only, depending on the motherboard. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3. ECC support is present on the Core 3 but absent on the Core Ultra. PCIe connectivity differs, with the Core 3 offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Core Ultra offering Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 and Arc Xe-LPG 48EU on the Core Ultra. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3, while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra. The release dates differ, with the Core Ultra launching on 2024-04-07 and the Core 3 on 2025-01-12. The part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 and SRN9D for the Core Ultra.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 201E wins in every measured performance category. It leads in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core. It leads in all PassMark tests, including data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The largest margins come in extended instructions at 95.9% and data compression at 74.7%. The smallest margin is in single-thread PassMark at 3%.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantages are confined to specifications rather than performance. It offers more cores and threads, with 8 cores and 10 threads, which could theoretically benefit heavily parallel workloads, but the benchmark results do not reflect this advantage. It has a higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, which could be relevant for memory-bound tasks, but again, the recorded tests do not show a win. It uses a newer process node at 7 nm, which suggests better power efficiency, and its 15 watt TDP makes it a better fit for thermally constrained systems. Its Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics are a newer design than the UHD Graphics 730. It also supports DDR5 memory exclusively, which may be preferable in newer system builds.

For users prioritizing raw CPU benchmark scores, rendering performance, or compute-intensive workloads, the Core 3 201E is the only choice based on the data. For users prioritizing low power consumption, newer socket compatibility, or higher memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 3 105UL has specification-level advantages, but no performance wins in the recorded benchmark suite.