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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. No test in the database favors the Core 3. The margins, however, are not uniform, and the shape of those margins reveals where the Ultra 5 gains its advantage.

The single largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Ultra 5 scores 220 against 57 for the Core 3, a delta of 74.1 percent. This is an extreme outlier, suggesting the Ultra 5's execution resources handle that workload with unusual efficiency. The floating point math test shows a similar pattern: 86540 against 33260, a 61.6 percent deficit for the Core 3. Data encryption also favors the Ultra 5 heavily, 21428 versus 8931, a 58.3 percent gap.

The Cinebench results tell a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 posts 2397.5 against 1271, a 47 percent lead. R20 multicore shows 10041 versus 5297, a 47.2 percent gap. R23 multicore narrows considerably: 14629.5 versus 12613, only 13.8 percent apart. The single-core Cinebench tests follow a similar arc. R15 single-core shows a 38 percent gap (288.5 versus 179), R20 shows 47.3 percent (1417 versus 747), but R23 single-core closes to 9.6 percent (1969 versus 1780). The newer the Cinebench version, the closer the two processors become, which indicates the Core 3's architecture handles the newer workload characteristics relatively better.

PassMark's multithread score shows the Ultra 5 at 28119 against 14839, a 47.2 percent deficit for the Core 3. Integer math is closer: 68520 versus 43894, a 35.9 percent gap. Random string sorting shows 33654 versus 17783, again 47.2 percent. Data compression shows 283451 versus 164160, a 42.1 percent gap. Single-thread PassMark shows 4258 versus 3482, an 18.2 percent lead for the Ultra 5, the smallest single-thread margin in the PassMark suite. Physics simulation shows 1877 versus 1141, a 39.2 percent gap.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Ultra 5 at 31508, which puts it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 averages 19056, the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 5 include the Intel Core i5-13500 at 31510 (0 percent delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 (0 percent delta). The Core 3 sits next to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 (0 percent delta) and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039 (0.1 percent delta). The data places these two processors in entirely different competitive tiers, with roughly 65 percent separating their average scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines with fundamentally different designs. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700 with 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codename Arrow Lake-H, fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2049 with 14 cores and 14 threads. The thread counts deserve attention: the Core 3 has 8 threads from 4 cores, meaning Hyper-Threading is active. The Ultra 5 has 14 threads from 14 cores, so no simultaneous multithreading is present despite the higher core count.

Cache allocation differs sharply. The Core 3 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 5 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache increases are substantial, and the larger shared pool gives the Ultra 5 more working space for multi-threaded workloads.

The memory subsystems diverge as well. The Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, still dual-channel, but bandwidth rises to 102.4 GB/s. ECC is not supported on the Ultra 5. The PCIe configurations differ: the Core 3 exposes Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 exposes Gen 5 with only 8 CPU lanes. For a desktop part, the Core 3's extra lanes matter for expansion; for a mobile part, the Ultra 5's lane count suits its form factor.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 carries Arc Graphics 130T. The Core 3 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 4.80 GHz with a 60 W TDP. The Ultra 5 has a much lower base clock of 1.70 GHz but a slightly higher boost of 4.90 GHz, with a 28 W TDP. The lower base clock on the Ultra 5 is a power management choice; the boost behavior carries it past the Core 3 in single-threaded tests. The die size for the Core 3 is recorded at 163 mm², while no die size is listed for the Ultra 5. Both processors share a release date of 2025-01-12, and both are listed as active production. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 is $134; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H boosts to 4.90 GHz, slightly ahead of the Intel Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz.

Q: Does the Core 3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 3 lists ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 5 225H does not.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Core 3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 225H leads by 74.1 percent, scoring 220 against 57.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225H lists 102.4 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed with an active production status. Both also share the same release date of 2025-01-12.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The Core 3 uses 4 cores and 8 threads; the Ultra 5 uses 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 1.70 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. TDP: 60 W versus 28 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2049. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-H. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 163 mm² versus no recorded value.

Cache: L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB. L2 per core is 1.25 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared is 12 MB versus 18 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC: supported versus not supported. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 8. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Graphics 130T. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. The Core 3 has a launch MSRP of $134; the Ultra 5 has no launch MSRP recorded. Both have locked multipliers, both are from Intel, and both are active production parts released on the same date.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 225H wins every recorded benchmark, but the nature of its wins matters. In multi-threaded workloads, the advantage is decisive. The 14 physical cores overwhelm the Core 3's 4 cores with Hyper-Threading, producing leads of roughly 40 to 50 percent in most PassMark multi-threaded tests and in Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore. The data encryption and floating point math tests show particularly large gaps, which suggests the Ultra 5's newer execution units handle these workloads with far greater efficiency. The find prime numbers test, with its 74.1 percent gap, is the most extreme example.

The Ultra 5 also wins single-threaded tests, though by smaller margins. PassMark single-thread shows an 18.2 percent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows only a 9.6 percent lead. The boost clock advantage of 0.10 GHz is small, but the architectural differences, particularly the 3 nm process and larger per-core cache, contribute to the single-thread edge. For workloads that depend on raw single-core responsiveness, the Ultra 5 is still ahead, just not by the same margin as in multi-threaded tasks.

The Core 3 201E has no benchmark wins in the database. Its case rests on platform attributes rather than performance scores. It is a desktop part, so it uses Socket 1700, which allows for a wider range of motherboards and aftermarket cooling. It supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Ultra 5. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, double the Ultra 5's 8 lanes, which matters for expansion cards and storage. Its memory support includes DDR4, which can lower platform costs for existing systems. The Core 3 also draws 60 W TDP, which is higher than the Ultra 5's 28 W, but it is a desktop part without the same power constraints.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H as the superior performer. It holds the 82nd percentile ranking against the Core 3's 73rd, and its average benchmark score of 31508 is roughly 65 percent higher. The nearest rival data confirms this positioning: the Ultra 5 trades blows with the Intel Core i5-13500 and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, while the Core 3 sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F. These are different performance classes.

The choice between them depends on platform needs rather than benchmark results. The Ultra 5 delivers the performance, but it is a mobile part on BGA 2049, meaning it comes soldered to a motherboard. It does not support ECC, and its PCIe lane count is halved. The Core 3, despite losing every benchmark, offers desktop flexibility: Socket 1700, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, DDR4 support, and ECC capability. For a workstation or server-style build where ECC is required, the Core 3 is the only option between these two. For raw compute performance, the Ultra 5 wins without qualification. The data shows no scenario where the Core 3 outperforms it.