Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core Ultra 5 225 are both active desktop processors from Intel, but they occupy different tiers of the performance spectrum. The Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on the 10 nm process with a Bartlett Lake design, while the Core Ultra 5 225 is a 10-core, 10-thread processor on TSMC's 3 nm node using the Arrow Lake architecture. The database records a decisive performance gap: the Core Ultra 5 225 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 36938 versus 19056 for the Core 3 201E. Their percentile rankings reflect this separation, with the Core Ultra 5 225 sitting at the 85th percentile of all CPUs and the Core 3 201E at the 73rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark category where the Core 3 201E takes the lead. The Core Ultra 5 225 wins every recorded test, which makes a use-case split somewhat one-sided. However, the magnitude of those wins varies significantly by workload type, which clarifies where each processor might still be viable.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 5 225 is consistently ahead but by a smaller margin. The PassMark single-thread score shows 4412 versus 3482, a 21.1% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core results show 891 versus 747, a 16.2% gap. These are the narrowest deltas in the entire comparison, suggesting the Core 3 201E's boost clock of 4.80 GHz keeps it competitive in lightly threaded scenarios, even though the Core Ultra 5 225's 4.90 GHz boost clock edges it out.

Multi-threaded workloads reveal the largest differences. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score for the Core Ultra 5 225 is 25891, while the Core 3 201E scores 12613, a 51.3% deficit. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 30459 versus 14839, also a 51.3% gap. This tracks with the core count difference: the Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads, while the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225's lack of hyper-threading means it uses physical cores only, yet its 10-core layout still doubles the available execution resources.

Specialized instruction workloads show some of the most extreme disparities. The PassMark find prime numbers test records 358 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, an 84.1% difference. Data encryption shows 22285 versus 8931, a 59.9% gap. Extended instructions score 27162 versus 11035, a 59.4% difference. These results indicate the Core Ultra 5 225's newer architecture and larger cache hierarchy provide substantial advantages in computation-heavy and cryptographic tasks.

The only area where the Core 3 201E approaches parity is integer math. The PassMark integer math score shows 65345 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 43894 for the Core 3 201E, a 32.8% gap. This is still a decisive win for the Core Ultra 5 225, but it is the smallest percentage difference in the multi-threaded set. The Core 3 201E's 12 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory support at 76.8 GB/s bandwidth provide a functional baseline, though the Core Ultra 5 225's 20 MB L3 and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth remain superior.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The difference is 0.10 GHz, which partially explains the single-thread performance advantage of the Core Ultra 5 225.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 25891 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core 3 201E scores 12613. The Core Ultra 5 225 leads by 51.3%, representing a near-doubling of multi-threaded rendering performance.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225 supports only DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 225 also has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E.

Q: What is the difference in their integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The database does not record benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so no direct performance comparison is available.

Q: Which processor has the higher process node count in terms of nanometers?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, while the Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 225 also has a larger die size at 243 mm² versus 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 225 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225 has an average benchmark score of 36938, which is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F at 36945 (0% delta). It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D by 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 by 0.4%, while leading the Intel Core i9-12900T by 0.5%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the Core Ultra 5 225's dominance in both single and multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 225 scores 2609 against 1271 for the Core 3 201E, a 51.3% difference. The R15 single-core result is 368 versus 179, a 51.4% gap. Moving to R20, the multi-core gap narrows to 16.1% with scores of 6317 and 5297, while the single-core test shows 891 versus 747, a 16.2% difference. The R23 multi-core test returns to the 51.3% pattern with 25891 versus 12613, and the R23 single-core score shows 3655 versus 1780, again a 51.3% gap.

The PassMark suite reveals workload-specific behavior. Data compression scores 302811 for the Core Ultra 5 225 versus 164160 for the Core 3 201E, a 45.8% advantage. Data encryption shows the largest percentage gap in the entire dataset at 59.9%, with scores of 22285 and 8931. Extended instructions follow closely at 59.4% with 27162 versus 11035. Floating point math shows a 63.9% difference with 92038 versus 33260, while integer math has the smallest multi-threaded gap at 32.8% with 65345 versus 43894.

Prime number finding delivers the most lopsided result. The Core Ultra 5 225 scores 358 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, an 84.1% margin. This suggests the Core Ultra 5 225's architecture handles iterative integer operations far more efficiently. The physics test shows 2342 versus 1141, a 51.3% difference, and random string sorting shows 36590 versus 17783, a 51.4% gap. The multi-thread aggregate score is 30459 versus 14839, again a 51.3% difference. Single-thread scores show 4412 versus 3482, a 21.1% gap, which is the smallest delta in the PassMark set.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks differ at 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E versus 3.30 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 225, but the boost clocks reverse the order at 4.80 GHz and 4.90 GHz respectively. Thermal design power is 60 watts for the Core 3 201E and 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 225.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Intel Socket 1851. This means they are not interchangeable in existing motherboards. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Core Ultra 5 225 supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth increases from 76.8 GB/s on the Core 3 201E to 102.4 GB/s on the Core Ultra 5 225. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra 5 225.

PCIe lane counts differ: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 225 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core Ultra 5 225 has a launch MSRP of $246. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 225 was released on 2025-01-06. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses TSMC's 3 nm process with an Arrow Lake-S codename and Arrow Lake architecture. The die sizes differ substantially: 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E versus 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 5 225. The Core Ultra 5 225 also carries a transistor count of 17,800 million, a figure not recorded for the Core 3 201E.

Cache hierarchies show a clear scaling. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 225 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. This larger cache footprint likely contributes to the Core Ultra 5 225's advantage in the extended instructions and data compression tests, where memory access patterns benefit from larger on-chip storage.

Integrated graphics differ in architecture. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The Core Ultra 5 225's graphics are based on Intel's Xe-LPG design, which is a newer generation than the UHD 730. The Core 3 201E comes from the Bartlett Lake family, while the Core Ultra 5 225 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 with the Arrow Lake architecture.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins every benchmark in the comparison, with an average benchmark score of 36938 that places it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile with an average score of 19056. The Core Ultra 5 225's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F, AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, all within 0.4% of its average score. The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core i5-12400F, and Intel Core i5-1335U, all within 0.4% of its average score.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, data encryption, or floating point math, the Core Ultra 5 225 is the only choice based on the benchmark deltas. Its 51.3% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 63.9% advantage in floating point math are decisive. The Core 3 201E remains a functional desktop processor for basic tasks, but its 4-core layout limits it to workloads where the 21.1% single-thread gap is acceptable.

The Core 3 201E does offer DDR4 support and ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 225 lacks. These features may matter for legacy system upgrades or specific reliability requirements. The Core Ultra 5 225 compensates with higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, and a larger cache. The launch MSRP difference of $134 versus $246 correlates with the performance gap, but the benchmark data alone shows the Core Ultra 5 225 delivering roughly double the average score.

The architecture differences reinforce the performance conclusions. The 3 nm TSMC process and 17,800 million transistors in the Core Ultra 5 225 represent a newer fabrication approach than the 10 nm Intel process in the Core 3 201E. The larger L3 cache and per-core L2 allocations provide structural advantages that show up consistently across all 17 benchmark comparisons. The Core 3 201E's Bartlett Lake design is not a direct competitor to the Arrow Lake architecture; the data indicates they target different performance tiers.