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

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core Ultra 5 225F occupy distinct positions in the desktop processor stack. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between the two, with the Core Ultra 5 225F delivering substantially higher scores across every recorded workload. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and what the numbers indicate for specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins all 17 benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. The margins vary significantly by workload, ranging from a modest single-core gap to a dominant multi-threaded advantage.

The largest deltas appear in math and encryption workloads. In the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, the Core Ultra 5 225F scores 352 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -83.8 percent. This indicates the Ultra 5 delivers roughly six times the performance in prime number computation. Similarly, passmark_data_encryption shows 22648 versus 8931, a -60.6 percent delta, and passmark_extended_instructions matches that -60.6 percent gap with scores of 28027 and 11035.

Floating-point math tells a similar story. The Core Ultra 5 225F records 92554 in passmark_floating_point_math, while the Core 3 201E manages 33260, a -64.1 percent difference. Integer math shows a narrower but still decisive gap: 66417 versus 43894, or -33.9 percent. Data compression favors the Ultra 5 at 310843 against 164160, a -47.2 percent delta, while random string sorting shows 37325 versus 17783, a -52.4 percent gap.

Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In cinebench_r15_multicore, the Core Ultra 5 225F scores 2660 against 1271, a -52.2 percent delta. The r20 multicore test shows 11059 versus 5297, a -52.1 percent gap, and the r23 multicore test narrows the relative margin to -23.4 percent with scores of 16467 and 12613. The single-core Cinebench results are closer. In r23 singlecore, the Ultra 5 scores 1893 versus 1780, a -6 percent delta. The r15 singlecore test shows 287 versus 179, a -37.6 percent gap, while r20 singlecore records 1561 versus 747, a -52.1 percent delta.

PassMark multithread and physics tests follow the overall trend. The passmark_multithread score for the Ultra 5 is 31004, against 14839 for the Core 3, a -52.1 percent delta. Physics shows 2430 versus 1141, a -53 percent difference. Single-thread performance is closer, with passmark_single_thread at 4397 versus 3482, a -20.8 percent delta.

The average benchmark score reflects this hierarchy. The Core Ultra 5 225F averages 37313, while the Core 3 201E averages 19056. The percentile placement confirms the separation: the Ultra 5 sits at the 85th percentile against all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 73rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no workload category where the Intel Core 3 201E takes the lead. Every recorded benchmark, from compression to encryption to floating-point math, favors the Core Ultra 5 225F. This means the Core 3 201E does not have a distinct strength in any tested metric.

The Core Ultra 5 225F wins across the board, but the size of the advantage varies by workload type. The closest contest is in cinebench_r23_singlecore, where the Ultra 5 leads by only 6 percent. This suggests that lightly threaded, short-duration tasks see the smallest performance gap between the two processors. The Core 3 201E holds its ground best in this scenario, though it still trails.

The largest advantages for the Ultra 5 appear in prime number finding, encryption, extended instructions, and floating-point math, all with deltas beyond -60 percent. These workloads tend to scale with core count, vector width, and memory bandwidth, all areas where the Ultra 5 has structural advantages. The Core 3 201E, with fewer cores and older architecture, cannot match these throughput-oriented tasks.

For single-threaded integer work, the delta narrows to -20.8 percent in passmark_single_thread. This indicates the Core 3 201E's per-core performance, while lower, is not dramatically far behind in basic scalar operations. The r23 singlecore result of -6 percent reinforces this, showing that modern single-core workloads see a relatively modest gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Arrow Lake architecture and the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

The process nodes differ substantially. The Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 225F uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Ultra 5 integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 lists a 163 mm² die size with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts diverge. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 5 uses a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores, though the database does not break down the core type distribution.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 3 201E carries 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 5 contribute to its single-threaded advantage, while the larger total L3 helps multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 225F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Sockets are incompatible. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Ultra 5 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Thermal design power differs slightly: 60 watts for the Core 3 and 65 watts for the Ultra 5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 225F support DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only, while the Intel Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the Core 3 201E wins?

A: No. The recorded data shows the Core Ultra 5 225F winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F provides 102.4 GB/s, while the Intel Core 3 201E provides 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 225F uses Intel Socket 1851.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the faster processor in every measured workload. Its average benchmark score of 37313 is nearly double the 19056 average of the Core 3 201E. The percentile ranking confirms this: 85th versus 73rd.

For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Ultra 5 delivers more than double the performance in Cinebench r15 and r20 multicore tests. The 10 cores and 20 MB of L3 cache provide a structural advantage that the 4-core, 12 MB L3 Core 3 cannot match. The -52 percent deltas in these tests make the choice clear for heavily threaded applications.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ultra 5 still leads, but the margin shrinks. The r23 singlecore delta of -6 percent and the passmark single_thread delta of -20.8 percent show a closer contest. Users running lightly threaded applications will see a smaller, but still present, performance benefit from the Ultra 5.

The Core 3 201E offers ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 lacks, and includes integrated graphics, which the Ultra 5 does not. It also supports DDR4, providing more flexible memory options. These features may matter for specific system configurations.

The Core Ultra 5 225F delivers higher performance across all 17 recorded benchmarks, with particularly large advantages in encryption, floating-point math, and prime number finding. It uses a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth. The Core 3 201E, while competitive in single-core Cinebench r23, falls behind decisively in throughput-oriented workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 5 225F |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 10 |

| Threads | 8 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $231 |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SRQD2SRVF9 |