Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 135HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 135HL. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither processor records any wins in direct comparison tests. This absence of comparative data is notable, as it leaves the performance relationship between these two desktop processors entirely dependent on their individual benchmark profiles.

The Core 3 201E has a complete set of recorded measurements. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 12613, while its single-core score is 1780. The Core Ultra 5 135HL, however, has no benchmark scores recorded in the database at all. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its nearest rivals array is empty. This means the data cannot confirm any performance advantage for either processor in a direct test scenario.

The Core 3 201E also carries a percentile rank of 73 among all CPUs, placing it in the upper quarter of the database's tested processors. The Core Ultra 5 135HL sits at the 50th percentile, though this figure is based on the absence of recorded scores rather than measured performance.

Given the empty head-to-head results, the only meaningful comparisons available come from the Core 3 201E's nearest rivals. The Core 3 201E averages a benchmark score of 19056, which is virtually identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047, a 0 percent difference. The Intel Core i5-12400F trails by 0.1 percent with an average of 19039, and the Intel Core i5-1335U is 0.4 percent behind at 18982. The AMD EPYC 7773X also sits 0.4 percent back at 18979. These margins are exceptionally tight, indicating that the Core 3 201E performs in a narrow band around these four rivals despite its different core configuration.

The absence of benchmark data for the Core Ultra 5 135HL prevents any numerical comparison of multi-threaded workloads, single-threaded responsiveness, or computational throughput. The database records no Cinebench, PassMark, or other standardized scores for this processor. Any claims about its relative speed would require speculative extrapolation, which the recorded data does not support.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 135HL have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The benchmark array for the Core Ultra 5 135HL is empty, its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it has no nearest rivals recorded.

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 201E compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Core 3 201E averages 19056 in the database. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047 (0 percent difference), the Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19039 (0.1 percent behind), the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982 (0.4 percent behind), and the AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18979 (0.4 percent behind).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core Ultra 5 135HL has 14 cores and 18 threads, while the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions for these two processors?

A: The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL uses Arc Xe-LPG 128EU.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL does not.

Q: What sockets do the two processors use?

A: The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 135HL uses Intel Socket 1851.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and use different manufacturing nodes. The Core 3 201E is built on Bartlett Lake, a codename that the database places in the "Core 3 (Bartlett Lake)" generation. The Core Ultra 5 135HL is a Meteor Lake part, specifically listed as "Ultra 5 (Meteor Lake-PS)" and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1 family. The process node differs as well: the Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL uses a 7 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel.

The core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, a conventional layout for a modest desktop part. The Core Ultra 5 135HL has 14 cores and 18 threads, a hybrid arrangement consistent with Meteor Lake's multi-tile design. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 201E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 135HL provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and higher shared L3 on the Core Ultra 5 135HL suggest a design intended to feed more cores and threads.

The integrated graphics differ in architecture and capability. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, a conventional Intel graphics solution. The Core Ultra 5 135HL uses Arc Xe-LPG 128EU, which is part of Intel's Arc graphics family. The database does not record any graphics benchmark scores for either processor, so the practical performance gap cannot be quantified, but the architectural difference is clear.

The memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL supports DDR5 with the note that the exact configuration depends on the motherboard. The Core 3 201E has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and the Core Ultra 5 135HL reaches 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

PCI Express support differs as well. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. This is a notable inversion: the older-process part offers a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which may matter for expansion options.

The release dates are separated by roughly nine months. The Core Ultra 5 135HL was released on April 7, 2024, and the Core 3 201E was released on January 12, 2025. Both processors are marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 4 cores and 8 threads for the Core 3 201E, versus 14 cores and 18 threads for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

Base clocks differ substantially. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 135HL has a base clock of 1.70 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 4.60 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

Thermal design power differs. The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60, and the Core Ultra 5 135HL has a TDP of 45. The Core 3 201E draws more power at its rated TDP despite having far fewer cores.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

Cache allocations differ across all levels. L1 is 80 KB per core versus 112 KB per core. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2 MB per core. L3 is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E, DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 5 135HL (with a motherboard-dependent note). Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 3 201E and absent on the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

PCIe support differs: Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 3 201E, Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG 128EU.

Process node differs: 10 nm for the Core 3 201E, 7 nm for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

Die size is recorded only for the Core 3 201E at 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 135HL has no die size listed.

The launch MSRP is recorded for the Core 3 201E at $134. The Core Ultra 5 135HL has no launch MSRP listed.

Part numbers differ: SRVTR for the Core 3 201E, SRN33 for the Core Ultra 5 135HL.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an asymmetric picture. The Intel Core 3 201E has a full benchmark profile, a 73rd percentile rank among all CPUs, and an average benchmark score of 19056 that places it within 0.4 percent of four distinct rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 5 135HL has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no rival comparisons. On the basis of the database, the Core 3 201E is the only one of the two whose measured performance can be discussed.

The Core 3 201E also carries advantages in several specification areas. It has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, a much higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 1.70 GHz, ECC memory support, broader memory compatibility with both DDR4 and DDR5, a newer PCIe generation with more lanes, and a recorded launch MSRP. Its 60 TDP is higher than the Core Ultra 5 135HL's 45 TDP, which may reflect a less power-efficient design, but the database does not record any power efficiency measurements.

The Core Ultra 5 135HL counters with more cores and threads, larger caches at every level, a smaller process node, higher memory bandwidth, and a more advanced integrated graphics solution. These are structural advantages that would typically suggest stronger multi-threaded potential and better graphics output. However, the database records no benchmark results to confirm that potential. The 50th percentile rank is not derived from measured scores, and the 0 average benchmark score indicates a lack of data rather than a lack of performance.

A user choosing between these two processors based strictly on the recorded data faces a clear divide. The Core 3 201E is a measured, documented part with known performance characteristics. The Core Ultra 5 135HL is a specification sheet without a performance record. The data supports the Core 3 201E for any workload where measured scores matter. The Core Ultra 5 135HL's case rests entirely on its hardware configuration, which the database cannot validate.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E wins in every category where the database has recorded measurements. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12613 and single-core score of 1780 establish a baseline for both threaded and lightly threaded work. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3482 indicates strong single-core responsiveness, and its multithread score of 14839 shows balanced scaling. The data compression score of 164160, floating point math score of 33260, and integer math score of 43894 provide additional evidence of computational capability across different workload types.

The Core Ultra 5 135HL wins in specification comparisons that do not require benchmark scores. Its 14 cores and 18 threads exceed the Core 3 201E's 4 cores and 8 threads. Its 18 MB of shared L3 doubles the Core 3 201E's 12 MB. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the Core 3 201E's 76.8 GB/s. Its Arc Xe-LPG 128EU integrated graphics is a more modern design than UHD Graphics 730. Its 7 nm process node is smaller than the 10 nm node used by the Core 3 201E. These advantages suggest the Core Ultra 5 135HL could be the stronger choice for multi-threaded workloads, memory-intensive tasks, and integrated graphics output, assuming its unrecorded performance matches its hardware profile.

The Core 3 201E wins on measured performance, ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, higher boost clock, and a higher base clock. The Core Ultra 5 135HL wins on core count, thread count, cache capacity, memory bandwidth, process node, and integrated graphics tier. The database does not record any workload where the Core Ultra 5 135HL demonstrably outperforms the Core 3 201E, because no such benchmark data exists. The Core 3 201E is the only processor of the pair with a performance record, and the only one whose wins can be stated with numerical evidence.