Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 5 228V
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V
FAQ
Q: How do the two CPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V records an average benchmark score of 21440, while the Intel Core 3 201E scores 19056. The Ultra 5 228V also sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E.
Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E wins 3. The Core 3 201E takes victories in Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R23 single-core, and PassMark integer math.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning the Ultra 5 228V has double the physical cores but no hyper-threading.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V's 4.50 GHz boost clock. The Core 3 201E also has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.
Q: How do the integrated graphics solutions differ?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses Arc 130V. The Ultra 5 228V's graphics solution is paired with a lower 17 W TDP compared to the Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP.
Q: What are the process node differences between the two?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Ultra 5 228V also has a smaller die size footprint, though the die size is not recorded for it.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to a clear split between the two processors based on workload and platform. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V is the stronger overall performer in most measured tests, winning 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 21440 places it ahead of the Core 3 201E's 19056 by roughly 12.5%. The Ultra 5 228V also holds a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs at 75 versus 73.
For users prioritizing multi-threaded Cinebench R23 performance, the Intel Core 3 201E delivers a decisive win, scoring 12613 against the Ultra 5 228V's 9932, a 27% advantage. It also edges out the Ultra 5 228V in Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.3% and in PassMark integer math by 10.6%. These results favor the Core 3 201E in scenarios where sustained all-core rendering or integer-heavy desktop tasks matter more than other workloads.
However, the Ultra 5 228V dominates across PassMark's broader suite, including floating-point math (53310 versus 33260, a 37.6% lead), data encryption (13032 versus 8931, a 31.5% lead), and find prime numbers (168 versus 57, a 66.1% lead). Its 8 physical cores without hyper-threading still outpace the 4-core, 8-thread Core 3 201E in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, showing that core count matters more than thread count in those specific tests.
The verdict from the data: the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V is the better all-around processor for mixed workloads, particularly those involving encryption, floating-point calculations, and multitasking, as indicated by its PassMark multithread score of 18227 versus 14839. The Intel Core 3 201E should be the choice for users whose primary benchmark is Cinebench R23 multi-core or who need integer math performance, as it holds a clear edge there. The Core 3 201E also offers ECC memory support and a desktop socket, which may be relevant factors for certain system builds.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most lopsided result in the dataset is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V scores 168 versus the Intel Core 3 201E's 57, a 66.1% difference. This test highlights the Ultra 5 228V's per-core efficiency advantage in single-threaded integer loops. Similarly, PassMark floating-point math shows the Ultra 5 228V at 53310 against 33260, a 37.6% lead, indicating substantially stronger FPU throughput.
In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ultra 5 228V scores 267 versus 179 for the Core 3 201E, a 33% margin. The R20 single-core test repeats this pattern with 916 versus 747, an 18.4% gap. These results align with the Ultra 5 228V's PassMark single-thread score of 3836, which beats the Core 3 201E's 3482 by 9.2%.
The Ultra 5 228V also wins in data encryption with 13032 versus 8931, a 31.5% lead, and in extended instructions with 14801 versus 11035, a 25.4% lead. PassMark physics shows 1538 versus 1141, a 25.8% advantage for the Ultra 5 228V. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 5 228V at 21254 versus 17783, a 16.3% margin. Data compression favors the Ultra 5 228V by 5.6% (173924 versus 164160). PassMark multithread also goes to the Ultra 5 228V at 18227 versus 14839, an 18.6% difference.
The Intel Core 3 201E's wins come in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it posts 12613 against the Ultra 5 228V's 9932, a 27% advantage. This is the largest win for either side in the Cinebench suite. The Core 3 201E also takes Cinebench R23 single-core by a narrow 1.3% margin (1780 versus 1758) and PassMark integer math by 10.6% (43894 versus 39679).
The Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests both go to the Ultra 5 228V, with scores of 1502.5 versus 1271 (15.4% lead) and 6491 versus 5297 (18.4% lead), respectively. This split between Cinebench versions suggests the Core 3 201E's higher boost clock and thread count help it in the R23 workload specifically, while the Ultra 5 228V's 8 cores win in the older R15 and R20 tests.
Specification Differences
The Intel Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses Intel BGA 2833. The Core 3 201E is a desktop part, whereas the Ultra 5 228V is a mobile processor. This socket difference dictates the entire platform compatibility.
Core and thread counts differ significantly: the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 3 201E's base clock of 3.60 GHz is higher than the Ultra 5 228V's 2.10 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.80 GHz exceeds the Ultra 5 228V's 4.50 GHz.
TDP is a major differentiator: the Core 3 201E draws 60 W, while the Ultra 5 228V draws only 17 W. This makes the Ultra 5 228V far more power-efficient on paper, which is consistent with its mobile segment and smaller process node.
Cache hierarchies differ in all levels. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 228V has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 228V has larger L1 and L2 per core, but the Core 3 201E has more total L3.
Memory support differs: the Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Ultra 5 228V's memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard. The Core 3 201E also supports ECC memory, whereas the Ultra 5 228V does not.
PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 228V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Core 3 201E's launch MSRP is $134; the Ultra 5 228V has no recorded launch MSRP.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 3 201E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake architecture and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. These are fundamentally different design generations.
The process node differs substantially: the Core 3 201E is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 5 228V uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Ultra 5 228V's smaller node allows for a 17 W TDP despite having 8 cores, whereas the Core 3 201E's 10 nm process requires 60 W for 4 cores. The Core 3 201E has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Ultra 5 228V's die size is not recorded.
Cache architecture reflects different design philosophies. The Core 3 201E's L1 is 80 KB per core with 1.25 MB L2 per core and a 12 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 228V's L1 is 192 KB per core with 2.5 MB L2 per core and an 8 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 228V provides more per-core cache, which explains its strong single-threaded results despite lower clock speeds.
Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 228V uses Arc 130V. The Arc 130V is a more modern GPU architecture aligned with the Lunar Lake platform, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the dataset.
The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Ultra 5 228V, and it uses a desktop socket with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 5 228V is a mobile BGA part with only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, reflecting its intended use in thinner, lower-power systems.
Release dates differ by roughly four months: the Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12, while the Ultra 5 228V launched on 2024-09-23. Both are marked as Active in production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
The architecture differences directly explain the benchmark results. The Ultra 5 228V's 3 nm process and larger per-core caches drive its wins in single-threaded and floating-point tests. The Core 3 201E's higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache contribute to its Cinebench R23 multi-core victory and integer math edge.