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

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher overall benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX records an average benchmark score of 52073, while the Intel Core 3 201E records 19056. The Ultra 5 235HX wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34731 against the Core 3 201E's 12613, a delta of -63.7% from the Core 3's perspective. The Core Ultra 5 235HX is roughly 2.75 times faster in this test.

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

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core 3 201E. The Core Ultra 5 235HX wins every single one of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the difference in market positioning?

A: The Core 3 201E is a Desktop segment processor with a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX is a Mobile segment processor. The Core 3 201E is in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX sits in the 91st percentile.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare?

A: The Core 3 201E's average score of 19056 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047), Intel Core i5-12400F (19039), Intel Core i5-1335U (18982), and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979). The Core Ultra 5 235HX's average of 52073 sits within 0.7% of the AMD EPYC 8124P (52121), AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (51947), Intel Core i7-14700 (52301), and Intel Core i9-13900F (51730).

Q: What do the single-thread scores indicate?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 4683 versus 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a 25.6% advantage. This is the narrowest performance gap across all tests, indicating the Core 3 201E is relatively closer in lightly threaded workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel designs. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 235HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra 5 235HX has no hyper-threading on its higher core count, while the Core 3 201E uses hyper-threading to double its thread count from 4 to 8. 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 235HX has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3, doubling the L3 capacity.

Clock speeds show a different trade-off. The Core 3 201E has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, but the Core Ultra 5 235HX has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. Power envelopes are similar, with TDP ratings of 60 watts for the Core 3 201E and 55 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

Memory support differs markedly. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 235HX supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX does not.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Core 3 201E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E has UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU.

The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Intel BGA 2114. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 201E does not. Both processors share the same release date of January 12, 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive and consistent victory for the Core Ultra 5 235HX across every workload category. The largest relative gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 361 against 57, a delta of -84.2%. This indicates an overwhelming advantage in integer-heavy mathematical workloads.

The floating-point math test shows a similarly large gap. The Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers 129819 points versus 33260 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -74.4%. Data encryption also favors the Core Ultra 5 235HX by a wide margin: 32697 versus 8931, a delta of -72.7%. Extended instruction workloads show the Core Ultra 5 235HX at 34808 against 11035, a delta of -68.3%.

Random string sorting results in a 65.1% delta, with the Core Ultra 5 235HX scoring 50929 and the Core 3 201E scoring 17783. Data compression shows a 61.5% delta: 426417 versus 164160. Multi-thread throughput in PassMark gives the Core Ultra 5 235HX a score of 40849 against 14839, a 63.7% delta.

The Cinebench suite shows remarkably consistent deltas. Every Cinebench test, whether R15, R20, or R23, and whether single-core or multi-core, records a delta of -63.7% or -63.8%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 34731 versus 12613. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4903 versus 1780. This consistency suggests a uniform architectural advantage rather than workload-specific strengths.

The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235HX leads by 25.6% with a score of 4683 against 3482. Physics simulation shows a 55.3% delta (2550 versus 1141), and integer math shows a 54.8% delta (97177 versus 43894). Even in the closest test, the Core Ultra 5 235HX maintains a substantial lead.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every measured benchmark. The average benchmark score of 52073 for the Core Ultra 5 235HX versus 19056 for the Core 3 201E places these processors in different performance tiers entirely. The Core Ultra 5 235HX sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Core i9-13900F, with score deltas of 0.2% and 0.7% respectively. The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F, with deltas of 0% and 0.1%. This positioning shows that the Core 3 201E competes with mid-range desktop processors, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX competes with high-end desktop processors from previous generations.

For users seeking maximum throughput in multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235HX is the clear choice. Its 14 cores, larger caches, and higher boost clock deliver roughly 2.75 times the multi-core performance of the Core 3 201E in Cinebench R23. The single-thread advantage of 25.6% also favors the Core Ultra 5 235HX, though this is the area where the Core 3 201E is relatively closest.

The Core 3 201E offers different practical advantages. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC memory support, and uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform. It has a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and a lower launch MSRP of $134. These factors make it suitable for systems where memory flexibility, error correction, or platform compatibility take priority over raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 2.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP is 60 watts for the Core 3 201E and 55 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

The socket differs: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E versus Intel BGA 2114 for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 3 201E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. The foundry is Intel for the Core 3 201E and TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. Die sizes are 163 mm² and 243 mm² respectively.

Cache configurations differ at every level. L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the Core 3 201E versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache is 12 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. The Core Ultra 5 235HX has 17,800 million transistors, a figure the Core 3 201E does not list.

Memory support shows the Core 3 201E accepting DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX accepts only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201E and absent on the Core Ultra 5 235HX. PCIe lanes are 16 for the Core 3 201E and 20 for the Core Ultra 5 235HX, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 3 201E and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. The multiplier is locked on the Core 3 201E and unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 235HX. Market segments are Desktop for the Core 3 201E and Mobile for the Core Ultra 5 235HX. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 5 235HX.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 235HX wins in every benchmark category, but the magnitude of its advantage varies by workload. The largest wins are in prime number finding (-84.2%), floating-point math (-74.4%), and data encryption (-72.7%). These results indicate the Core Ultra 5 235HX is particularly strong in mathematical and cryptographic workloads. The extended instructions test shows a 68.3% advantage, further confirming its strength in specialized instruction sets.

The Core Ultra 5 235HX also excels in content creation and rendering workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show consistent deltas around -63.7%, covering both single-core and multi-core rendering. Data compression shows a 61.5% advantage, and random string sorting shows a 65.1% advantage. These results make the Core Ultra 5 235HX the stronger choice for video rendering, 3D modeling, and data processing tasks.

The Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark category, but its relative strengths can be identified from the data. Its narrowest gap is in single-thread performance at -25.6%, suggesting it is comparatively competitive in lightly threaded applications. Its integer math performance shows a -54.8% delta, while physics shows -55.3%, both narrower than its deficits in floating-point and encryption workloads. The Core 3 201E's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz likely contributes to its relatively better showing in single-thread tests.

The Core 3 201E's practical advantages lie outside benchmark scores. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory provides flexibility in system building, and its ECC memory support suits error-sensitive workloads. Its Desktop market segment and Socket 1700 compatibility make it a drop-in option for existing platforms. The Core Ultra 5 235HX, as a Mobile segment processor on BGA 2114, targets portable systems and is not socket-compatible with desktop platforms.

For users building a desktop system where the motherboard already supports Socket 1700, the Core 3 201E offers a path that avoids platform changes. For users prioritizing maximum performance in a mobile system, the Core Ultra 5 235HX delivers dramatically higher throughput across every recorded workload. The 91st percentile ranking for the Core Ultra 5 235HX versus the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E summarizes the performance hierarchy: the Core Ultra 5 235HX belongs to a higher performance class entirely.