Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL Comparison

Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL

The Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL occupy different positions in Intel’s desktop lineup, and the recorded data shows a clear split between raw compute capacity and efficiency-oriented design. The Core 3 201E is a Bartlett Lake part with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL is a Meteor Lake-PS processor with 12 cores and 14 threads. Both are active production parts for desktop sockets, but they differ sharply in clock speeds, power targets, and integrated graphics. The Core 3 201E has a complete benchmark record, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. That absence shapes the comparison, but the specification differences still provide a substantial basis for analysis.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors. The database shows zero recorded wins for either part in direct comparison tests. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has no benchmark scores at all, meaning there is no measured performance data for it in any of the standard test suites. The Core 3 201E, by contrast, has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results. This creates an asymmetric situation where the analysis must lean on the available scores for the Core 3 201E and the architectural parameters of the Core Ultra 5 125UL.

The Core 3 201E delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12613 and a single-core score of 1780. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5297 multi-core and 747 single-core. The R15 results are 1271 multi-core and 179 single-core. PassMark tests show a multi-thread score of 14839 and a single-thread score of 3482. Integer math reaches 43894, floating point math reaches 33260, and extended instructions score 11035. Data compression scores 164160, while data encryption scores 8931. The find prime numbers test returns 57, random string sorting scores 17783, and physics scores 1141.

The average benchmark score for the Core 3 201E is 19056, placing it in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19047, the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039, the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18982, and the AMD EPYC 7773X at 18979. The Core 3 201E leads the Ryzen 5 7535HS by a negligible margin, roughly 0 percent, and it sits 0.1 percent ahead of the Core i5-12400F. Against the Core i5-1335U and the EPYC 7773X, the lead is 0.4 percent in both cases. These deltas are small, indicating that the Core 3 201E performs at a level comparable to those established parts, despite having fewer cores than some of them.

The lack of benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 125UL means no direct score comparisons are possible. The database records no percentiles and no average score for that processor. Any statement about its performance relative to the Core 3 201E must therefore be inferred from its core count, clock speeds, and cache structure, not from measured results. The Core 3 201E’s scores stand on their own, and they show a processor that competes closely with mid-range parts from both AMD and Intel in synthetic workloads.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Core Ultra 5 125UL, so it has an average benchmark score of 0 and no percentile ranking.

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Core 3 201E as measured by Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 3 201E scores 1780 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a multi-core score of 12613 in the same test.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS in average benchmark score?

A: The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047. The delta is 0 percent, meaning the two are effectively tied.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has a TDP of 15.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores and 14 threads, compared to the Core 3 201E’s 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock of the Core Ultra 5 125UL?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, versus the Core 3 201E’s 4.80 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing processes. The Core 3 201E is built on a 10 nm process and is part of the Bartlett Lake family, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses a 7 nm process and belongs to the Meteor Lake-PS generation under the Meteor Lake architecture. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, whereas the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not socket-compatible and require different motherboards.

The core layouts differ substantially. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, which indicates hyper-threading on all cores. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores and 14 threads, a configuration that suggests a mix of performance and efficiency cores, with the thread count lower than twice the core count. The Core 3 201E’s base clock is 3.60 GHz and boost clock is 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The lower base clock on the Ultra part likely reflects its much lower 15 TDP, compared to the Core 3 201E’s 60 TDP.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and also 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra part has more L1 and L2 per core, but the same total L3. Memory support shows a split: the Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5 only, with the note that the specific type depends on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but memory bandwidth differs, with the Core 3 201E at 76.8 GB/s and the Core Ultra 5 125UL at 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe capabilities are another point of divergence. The Core 3 201E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 201E has UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201E but absent on the Core Ultra 5 125UL. The die size for the Core 3 201E is listed at 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 125UL. Transistor counts are not recorded for either part. The Core 3 201E has a release date of 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL was released on 2024-04-07.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear division of roles. The Core 3 201E is the better-documented processor, with a full set of benchmark scores that place it in the 73rd percentile. Its average score of 19056 puts it on par with parts like the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and the Intel Core i5-12400F, both of which have similar average scores within 0.1 percent. For workloads that rely on single-thread speed, the Core 3 201E’s 4.80 GHz boost clock and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1780 indicate strong performance. Its multi-core score of 12613 in R23 also shows solid throughput despite having only 4 cores.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL, by contrast, has no measured performance data. Its 12 cores and 14 threads suggest a higher multi-thread capability in theory, but the database cannot confirm any such advantage. Its base clock of 1.30 GHz is much lower than the Core 3 201E’s 3.60 GHz, which could limit sustained performance under heavy load, especially given the 15 TDP budget. The Ultra part does have a higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s and more L1 and L2 cache per core, but without benchmark results, those specifications do not translate into verified performance gains.

Picking between these two depends on what the data actually supports. The Core 3 201E has proven results across multiple test suites. The Core Ultra 5 125UL offers architectural features like a newer process node, more cores, and a different graphics solution, but no scores to substantiate its performance. The Core 3 201E also supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra part is limited to DDR5. PCIe Gen 5 on the Core 3 201E provides more bandwidth for expansion cards compared to the Ultra part’s PCIe Gen 4. For applications where measured performance matters, the Core 3 201E is the only one with data to back it up.

The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and for the Core Ultra 5 125UL it is $309. The Core 3 201E is the more economical part in terms of its listed launch price, but the analysis here does not address value, only the recorded specifications and benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 1.30 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. TDP values are 60 for the Core 3 201E and 15 for the Core Ultra 5 125UL. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 and Intel Socket 1851, respectively. The process nodes are 10 nm and 7 nm. The codenames are Bartlett Lake and Meteor Lake-PS.

Cache per core differs: L1 is 80 KB per core on the Core 3 201E and 112 KB per core on the Core Ultra 5 125UL. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. L3 is 12 MB shared on both. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5 only, depending on the motherboard. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra 5 125UL. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 3 201E, and Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 125UL. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. Die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E, with no die size listed for the Core Ultra 5 125UL. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the Core 3 201E and 2024-04-07 for the Core Ultra 5 125UL. Part numbers are SRVTR and SRN96. Both have locked multipliers. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, and the Core Ultra 5 125UL has a launch MSRP of $309.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E wins in every measured category, simply because it is the only one with recorded scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12613 and single-core score of 1780 provide concrete reference points. PassMark multi-thread at 14839 and single-thread at 3482 further establish its capability. The Core 3 201E also leads in clock speeds, with a higher base and boost clock, and it has the advantage of supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes offers more expansion bandwidth than the Ultra part’s PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. ECC memory support is another exclusive feature of the Core 3 201E.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL wins on core count, offering 12 cores and 14 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has a smaller process node at 7 nm, which typically indicates newer manufacturing technology. Its L1 and L2 caches are larger per core, and its memory bandwidth is higher at 89.6 GB/s. The integrated graphics are from the Arc Xe-LPG family with 64 execution units, which is a more advanced graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201E. The TDP of 15 is significantly lower, pointing to lower power draw. The release date is earlier, meaning it has been on the market for a longer period.

For workloads that demand high single-thread responsiveness, the Core 3 201E’s higher boost clock and proven Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1780 make it the stronger option based on data. For multi-threaded tasks that could use more cores, the Core Ultra 5 125UL’s 12-core configuration is theoretically suited, but no benchmark results exist to confirm its advantage. The Core 3 201E’s average benchmark score of 19056 and 73rd percentile placement show it competes with established mid-range processors. The Core Ultra 5 125UL has no such placement. In the absence of measured data, the Core 3 201E stands as the only part that the database can verify for performance.