Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 3 205
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark record presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 3 201E. There is no workload category in the database where the older Bartlett Lake part takes the lead. This uniform result makes the use-case split less about which processor wins specific tasks and more about the magnitude of the gap in different work types.
The largest advantages for the Core Ultra 3 205 appear in specialized compute workloads. In the PassMark find prime numbers test, the Ultra 3 205 scores 268 against 57 for the 201E, a delta of 78.7%. That is the single biggest proportional gap in the entire comparison. Floating point math also shows a massive separation: 75136 versus 33260, a 55.7% deficit for the 201E. Extended instruction workloads follow closely, with the Ultra 3 205 scoring 22578 against 11035, a 51.1% advantage. Data encryption shows a 52.4% gap, with 18772 versus 8931.
For general productivity, the differences are still substantial but somewhat narrower. Integer math sees the Ultra 3 205 at 54755 versus 43894, a 19.8% lead. Single-thread PassMark scores show 4575 versus 3482, a 23.9% gap. The multithread PassMark result is 26167 against 14839, a 43.3% difference. Physics simulation shows 2016 versus 1141, a 43.4% gap. Random string sorting lands at 31083 versus 17783, a 42.8% difference.
All Cinebench results, both single-core and multi-core, show a uniform 36.5% deficit for the 201E across R15, R20, and R23. The consistency suggests a broad architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Core Ultra 3 205 also dominates data compression, scoring 260651 against 164160, a 37% gap.
The percentile data reinforces this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 3 205 sits at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. Their average benchmark scores tell a similar story: 31473 for the Ultra 3 205 versus 19056 for the 201E.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the stronger processor in every measured dimension. For anyone comparing these two desktop parts, the choice is not about matching strengths to workloads, it is about whether the 201E offers anything at all outside of platform compatibility.
The Core Ultra 3 205 delivers a 36.5% advantage across every Cinebench iteration, both single-core and multi-core. It extends that lead to 78.7% in prime number finding, 55.7% in floating point math, and 52.4% in encryption. Even its smallest win, 19.8% in integer math, represents a meaningful performance gap. The Core Ultra 3 205 also outranks its rival on the aggregate scale, holding the 82nd percentile compared to the 73rd percentile.
The Core 3 201E does have one differentiating factor: ECC memory support. The 201E accepts DDR4 and DDR5 with ECC enabled, while the Ultra 3 205 is DDR5-only without ECC. That could matter for specific reliability-oriented builds. The 201E also uses the older Intel Socket 1700 platform, which may be relevant for users with existing motherboards.
Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is not a deciding factor. The 201E carries a launch MSRP of $134, while the Ultra 3 205 carries a launch MSRP of $140. The Ultra 3 205 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, compared to the 10 nm Intel process in the 201E. It also has double the cores: 8 versus 4.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most decisive single result is the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 3 205 posts 268, the Core 3 201E posts 57. That 78.7% gap indicates a fundamental difference in how well each chip handles iterative integer workloads. In floating point math, the Ultra 3 205 reaches 75136, while the 201E manages 33260, a 55.7% difference. Extended instruction throughput shows 22578 versus 11035, a 51.1% gap. Data encryption follows at 18772 versus 8931, a 52.4% difference.
The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. R15 multi-core: 2001 versus 1271. R15 single-core: 282 versus 179. R20 multi-core: 8339 versus 5297. R20 single-core: 1177 versus 747. R23 multi-core: 19856 versus 12613. R23 single-core: 2803 versus 1780. Every one of these shows exactly a 36.5% lead for the Ultra 3 205.
PassMark multithread shows 26167 versus 14839, a 43.3% gap. Physics simulation shows 2016 versus 1141, a 43.4% difference. Random string sorting shows 31083 versus 17783, a 42.8% gap. Data compression shows 260651 versus 164160, a 37% difference. Single-thread PassMark shows 4575 versus 3482, a 23.9% gap.
The narrowest margin anywhere is integer math at 19.8% in favor of the Ultra 3 205. Even that result is a clear loss for the 201E. The pattern across all 17 tests is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 3 205 holds a substantial lead in every category, with the smallest advantage still approaching one-fifth of the rival's score.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.
Q: Does the Core 3 201E support ECC memory?
A: Yes, the Core 3 201E has ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 3 205 does not.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 only.
Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 3 205 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Core Ultra 3 205 scores 19856, while the Core 3 201E scores 12613, a 36.5% advantage.
Q: What is the largest benchmark gap between the two?
A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 268 versus 57, a 78.7% difference.
Q: Do both processors have the same socket?
A: No. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Intel Socket 1851.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake design using a 10 nm Intel process, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. The die size differs substantially: 163 mm² for the 201E versus 243 mm² for the Ultra 3 205. The Ultra 3 205 also lists 17,800 million transistors, while the 201E has no transistor count recorded.
Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches align with the Ultra 3 205's higher core count and newer design.
The integrated graphics differ as well. The 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 3 205 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Both are desktop parts with active production status. The 201E launched in January 2025, while the Ultra 3 205 launched in July 2025.
Specification Differences
The Core Ultra 3 205 operates at a higher clock speed: a base of 3.80 GHz and a boost of 4.90 GHz, compared to 3.60 GHz and 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E. The core count difference is 8 versus 4, though both support 8 threads since the 201E uses Hyper-Threading.
The TDP values are close: 57 W for the Ultra 3 205 and 60 W for the 201E. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 3 205 at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe lane count also differs, with the Ultra 3 205 offering 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the 201E offers 16 Gen 5 lanes. The sockets are incompatible: Socket 1851 for the Ultra 3 205, Socket 1700 for the 201E. The Ultra 3 205 does not support ECC memory, while the 201E does.