Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. The most dramatic gaps appear in PassMark workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. In data compression, the Ultra 5 235 scores 390,711 against 164,160 for the Core 3 201E, a 58% advantage. Data encryption shows an even wider margin: 29,293 versus 8,931, a 69.5% lead. Extended instruction throughput follows the same pattern, with the Ultra 5 235 posting 32,752 against 11,035, a 66.3% difference.

Prime number finding exposes the largest single-workload deficit. The Core 3 201E manages only 57 in PassMark's find prime numbers test, while the Ultra 5 235 reaches 371, an 84.6% gap. Floating point math also skews heavily toward the Ultra 5 235: 117,951 versus 33,260, a 71.8% margin. Integer math is comparatively closer but still favors the Ultra 5 235 by 50.1%, with scores of 87,948 and 43,894.

Cinebench results show a consistent but narrower lead. The Ultra 5 235 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 14,769 versus 12,613, a 14.6% advantage. Single-core R23 shows the same 14.6% delta: 2,085 against 1,780. The pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20, with multi-core and single-core deltas all sitting at 14.6% or 14.8%. This consistency suggests the Ultra 5 235's per-core advantage is uniform across render workloads, rather than scaling unevenly with thread count.

PassMark multithread performance favors the Ultra 5 235 by 60.8% (37,816 versus 14,839), while PassMark physics shows a 55.6% lead (2,570 versus 1,141). Random string sorting delivers a 63.7% edge for the Ultra 5 235 (48,980 versus 17,783). The smallest recorded margin in any test is the 22.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance: 4,516 versus 3,482.

The aggregate benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056 across all tests, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs. The Ultra 5 235 averages 46,062, placing it in the 89th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 201E are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19,047 average, 0% delta), Intel Core i5-12400F (19,039, 0.1% delta), Intel Core i5-1335U (18,982, 0.4% delta), and AMD EPYC 7773X (18,979, 0.4% delta). The Ultra 5 235's closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46,030, 0.1% delta), Intel Core i9-13900HX (46,098, -0.1% delta), AMD EPYC 4364P (45,970, 0.2% delta), and AMD EPYC 7303 (45,960, 0.2% delta). The data places the Ultra 5 235 in a performance class roughly 2.4 times higher by average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in silicon design. The Core 3 201E uses 4 cores and 8 threads on Intel's Bartlett Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². The Ultra 5 235 uses 14 cores and 14 threads on Arrow Lake architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process with a die size of 243 mm². The Ultra 5 235 integrates 17,800 million transistors; the Core 3 201E does not report a transistor count.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. 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 Ultra 5 235 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The L3 capacity doubles, and per-core L2 more than doubles, which helps explain the Ultra 5 235's strength in data compression and encryption workloads that benefit from larger working sets.

Clock behavior also favors the Ultra 5 235. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra 5 235 runs a lower base of 3.40 GHz but boosts higher to 5.00 GHz. The higher boost ceiling contributes to the consistent single-core leads in Cinebench and PassMark.

Memory and I/O capabilities separate the two further. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and includes ECC support. The Ultra 5 235 supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, but with bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 235 offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are another differentiator. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Both target desktop sockets, but the sockets themselves differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5 235. The Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12, while the Ultra 5 235 launched on 2025-01-06. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for performance-oriented buyers. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins every benchmark in the comparison, with margins ranging from 14.6% in Cinebench render tests to 84.6% in prime number finding. Its average benchmark score of 46,062 versus 19,056 for the Core 3 201E places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E. The Ultra 5 235 also sits alongside much stronger rivals: its nearest competitors include the Intel Core i9-13900HX and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, while the Core 3 201E trades blows with the Intel Core i5-12400F and AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS.

The Core 3 201E does retain specific advantages. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 5 235 does not. It also works with both DDR4 and DDR5, offering broader memory compatibility for existing platforms. Its 60 W TDP is lower than the Ultra 5 235's 65 W TDP, and its 163 mm² die is smaller. For users constrained by platform compatibility or requiring ECC, the Core 3 201E is the only option between the two.

For all other workloads measured, the Ultra 5 235 is the superior part. The data shows no benchmark where the Core 3 201E leads. The Ultra 5 235's 14 cores versus 4 cores, doubled L3 cache, higher boost clock, and larger memory bandwidth all contribute to its dominance. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, while the Ultra 5 235 carries a launch MSRP of $257.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 14,769 versus 12,613 for the Core 3 201E, a 14.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Ultra 5 235 winning all 17 comparisons, with zero wins for the Core 3 201E.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 235 scores 371 versus 57, an 84.6% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 235 does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ultra 5 235 averages 46,062 across all tests, while the Core 3 201E averages 19,056. The Ultra 5 235 sits in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, the Core 3 201E in the 73rd.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ultra 5 235 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 3 201E has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins in every measured workload category. In render workloads, Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show the Ultra 5 235 ahead by 14.6% in both multi-core and single-core tests. In PassMark workloads, the margins are larger and vary by task. The smallest PassMark lead is 22.9% in single-thread performance, while the largest is 84.6% in prime number finding. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting all favor the Ultra 5 235 by margins between 50.1% and 71.8%.

The Core 3 201E's advantages are not in benchmark scores but in platform attributes. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 235 supports only DDR5. It includes ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 235 lacks. Its 60 W TDP is lower than the Ultra 5 235's 65 W TDP. It also uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Ultra 5 235 requires Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 201E's 163 mm² die is smaller than the Ultra 5 235's 243 mm².

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Ultra 5 235 is the clear choice across all 17 recorded benchmarks. For users needing ECC memory, DDR4 compatibility, or a lower TDP, the Core 3 201E offers those specific features, though it sacrifices substantial performance in every tested workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 5 235 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 14 |

| Threads | 8 | 14 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not reported | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 163 mm² | 243 mm² |

| 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 | 24 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 | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $257 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SRVTR | SRQAS |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 73rd | 89th |

| Average benchmark score | 19,056 | 46,062 |