Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 5 235A
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A
The Verdict
The benchmark data presents a decisive hierarchy between these two Intel desktop processors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no test going to the Intel Core 3 201E. The Core Ultra 5 235A sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E rests at the 73rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 235A is 48201, compared to 19056 for the Core 3 201E, a gap that places them in entirely different performance classes.
The Core 3 201E aligns with competitors such as the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which scores 19047 on average, and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039. The Core Ultra 5 235A instead competes against the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at 48171, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at 48287, and the AMD EPYC 4345P at 48470. These rival groupings confirm that the Core 3 201E targets the entry desktop segment, while the Core Ultra 5 235A operates in the upper mid-range tier. Users who require maximum throughput, rendering speed, or encryption performance should select the Core Ultra 5 235A. Users constrained to a smaller platform footprint or legacy memory compatibility may consider the Core 3 201E, but the data shows no performance scenario where it leads.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and the Arrow Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The process node difference alone accounts for substantial efficiency and density advantages in the newer part.
Core counts differ significantly. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235A provides 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235A does not use simultaneous multithreading, yet its raw core count gives it a 10-core advantage. Clock speeds show a mixed picture: the Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235A, but the Core Ultra 5 235A boosts to 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E. The higher boost ceiling on the Core Ultra 5 235A contributes to its single-thread advantage.
Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235A doubles the L3 capacity and provides larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations. Memory support differs as well: the Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth reflects this, with the Core 3 201E delivering 76.8 GB/s and the Core Ultra 5 235A reaching 102.4 GB/s. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235A does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235A offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics differ in capability. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235A includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Socket compatibility separates the two: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851. Thermal design power sits at 60 W for the Core 3 201E and 65 W for the Core Ultra 5 235A, a modest difference given the large performance gap. The Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 5 235A launched on 2025-07-28 with a launch MSRP of $269. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Core Ultra 5 235A dominates every recorded benchmark, but the margin varies by workload. The narrowest gap appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 4557 against 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a 23.6% advantage. This shows that the Core 3 201E remains competitive in lightly threaded tasks, though it still loses. The widest gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392 against 57, a 85.5% difference. This workload scales strongly with core count and cache, favoring the 14-core part dramatically.
Cinebench results show consistent 61.3% to 61.4% advantages for the Core Ultra 5 235A across all versions and thread counts. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E. In single-core R23, the scores are 4607 versus 1780. The consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates that the architectural advantage holds regardless of the rendering engine version.
PassMark integer math shows a 50.5% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235A, with scores of 88626 versus 43894. Floating-point math shows a larger 72% advantage, with 118778 versus 33260. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 235A by 58.3%, with 393800 versus 164160. Data encryption shows a 70.4% gap, with 30136 versus 8931. Extended instructions show a 65.1% gap, with 31625 versus 11035. Random string sorting shows a 64.1% gap, with 49489 versus 17783. Multi-threaded PassMark shows a 61.3% gap, with 38392 versus 14839. Physics simulation shows a 53.2% gap, with 2437 versus 1141.
The data indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235A wins by roughly 50% to 60% in integer and physics workloads, by 60% to 70% in rendering, compression, encryption, and sorting tasks, and by over 80% in prime-number finding. The single-thread gap of 23.6% is the only area where the Core 3 201E approaches parity, yet it still trails. No benchmark in the recorded set produces a win for the Core 3 201E.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235A provides 10 additional physical cores.
Q: How do their boost clocks compare?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235A and 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Core Ultra 5 235A has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.
Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A does not support ECC memory.
Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two processors?
A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392 against 57 for the Intel Core 3 201E, a 85.5% difference. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by 23.6%.
Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, nearly matching the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has an average score of 48201, close to the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at 48171 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at 48287.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins every measured category, but the magnitude of its advantage varies by workload type. For rendering and 3D modeling, the Cinebench results show a consistent 61.3% to 61.4% lead across R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. Users running CPU-based rendering workloads will see substantial time savings with the Core Ultra 5 235A. The multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 32633 versus 12613 indicates that the Core Ultra 5 235A completes rendering tasks in roughly 60% of the time required by the Core 3 201E.
For encryption and security workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235A shows a 70.4% advantage in PassMark data encryption. This makes it the clear choice for file encryption, VPN traffic processing, or database encryption tasks. The extended instructions benchmark shows a 65.1% lead, indicating better support for advanced instruction sets. For scientific computing, the floating-point math score of 118778 versus 33260 represents a 72% advantage, while integer math shows a 50.5% lead at 88626 versus 43894. The prime-number finding test reveals the largest gap at 85.5%, indicating that the Core Ultra 5 235A excels in workloads that stress core count and cache capacity.
For general productivity, the PassMark multi-thread score of 38392 versus 14839 shows a 61.3% advantage. The data compression score of 393800 versus 164160 gives the Core Ultra 5 235A a 58.3% lead, making it better suited for archive extraction, file compression, and database operations. Random string sorting shows a 64.1% lead, which benefits sorting-heavy applications. Physics simulation shows a 53.2% lead, with 2437 versus 1141.
The Intel Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark, but its closest relative performance comes in single-thread workloads. The PassMark single-thread score of 3482 for the Core 3 201E trails the Core Ultra 5 235A's 4557 by only 23.6%. This means that for basic single-threaded applications such as legacy software, simple scripting, or light office tasks, the Core 3 201E delivers a respectable portion of the Core Ultra 5 235A's performance. The Core 3 201E also offers ECC memory support, which the Core Ultra 5 235A lacks, and it supports DDR4 memory, which may allow platform cost reductions. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a different platform from the Core Ultra 5 235A's Intel Socket 1851.
The data supports a clear split: the Core Ultra 5 235A serves demanding multi-threaded workloads, rendering, encryption, scientific math, and high-throughput data processing. The Core 3 201E serves entry-level desktop tasks, ECC-capable systems, and applications where DDR4 compatibility matters. The 73rd percentile ranking of the Core 3 201E versus the 90th percentile of the Core Ultra 5 235A confirms the performance hierarchy. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the Core 3 201E aligns with older mid-range parts like the Intel Core i5-12400F, while the Core Ultra 5 235A aligns with current high-end mobile and desktop parts like the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX. No measured workload reverses the order.