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

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core Ultra 5 235TA are two desktop processors from Intel that target different segments of the market. The Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA is a 14-core, 14-thread processor based on Arrow Lake-S and fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC. The database contains a full set of benchmark scores for the Core 3 201E, but the Core Ultra 5 235TA currently has no recorded benchmark results. As a result, the analysis below compares specifications, architectural differences, and the measured performance of the Core 3 201E against its nearest rivals in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA is assessed primarily on its technical characteristics.

FAQ

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its nearest rival in average benchmark score?

A: The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19,056. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, scores 19,047, a difference of 0 percent. The Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19,039, which is 0.1 percent behind, and the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18,982, trailing by 0.4 percent.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Core Ultra 5 235TA therefore offers 10 additional cores, but no hyper-threading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235TA has a boost clock of 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 compared to 2.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

Q: What memory types are supported by each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA supports DDR5 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 235TA does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the production status and release date for each processor?

A: Both processors are Active in production. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 235TA was released on 2025-07-28.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, which is a 10 nm design from Intel. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, which indicates the use of simultaneous multithreading. The processor uses a per-core L1 cache of 80 KB, a per-core L2 cache of 1.25 MB, and a shared L3 cache of 12 MB. Its die size is 163 mm². The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory, which is a notable feature for reliability-sensitive workloads. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730. The processor uses Intel Socket 1700 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Core Ultra 5 235TA is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning each core handles a single thread. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, the L2 cache is 3 MB per core, and the shared L3 cache is 24 MB. The transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, and the die size is 243 mm². Memory support is limited to DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. The processor uses Intel Socket 1851 and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

The architectural differences are significant. The Core Ultra 5 235TA uses a more advanced 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has a larger transistor count and die size, with 17,800 million transistors and 243 mm², compared to the Core 3 201E, which has no transistor count listed and a die size of 163 mm². Cache capacities are larger on the Core Ultra 5 235TA in every level. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB L3 shared. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared. The Core Ultra 5 235TA also has more PCIe lanes at 20, compared to 16 for the Core 3 201E.

The memory controller differs as well. The Core 3 201E retains DDR4 compatibility, which can be useful for systems with existing memory, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA is DDR5-only. The memory bandwidth advantage goes to the Core Ultra 5 235TA, which offers 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core Ultra 5 235TA. The two processors use different sockets, Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E and Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 5 235TA, so they are not interchangeable in a motherboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Core 3 201E and the Core Ultra 5 235TA, because the Core Ultra 5 235TA has no recorded benchmark scores. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 235TA is listed as 0, and its percentile ranking among all CPUs is 50. The Core 3 201E has a percentile ranking of 73 and an average benchmark score of 19,056.

The Core 3 201E benchmark results can be analyzed against its nearest rivals. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 3 201E scores 1,271, and in single-core it scores 179. In Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 5,297 and the single-core score is 747. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score is 12,613 and the single-core score is 1,780. These scores place the Core 3 201E in a competitive position relative to processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which has an average score of 19,047, a 0 percent difference from the Core 3 201E. The Intel Core i5-12400F has an average score of 19,039, which is 0.1 percent behind, and the Intel Core i5-1335U has an average score of 18,982, 0.4 percent behind. The AMD EPYC 7773X also appears in the nearest rivals list with an average score of 18,979, a 0.4 percent difference.

PassMark results for the Core 3 201E show strong performance in specific workloads. Data compression scores 164,160, while data encryption scores 8,931. Extended instructions score 11,035, and prime number finding scores 57. Floating point math scores 33,260, and integer math scores 43,894. The multithread score is 14,839, physics scores 1,141, and random string sorting scores 17,783. Single-thread performance is recorded at 3,482, which appears twice in the database under slightly different test names but with the same value.

Since the Core Ultra 5 235TA has no benchmark data, a numerical comparison of their measured performance is not possible from the database. The only quantitative comparison available is through specifications. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, a higher core count of 14 versus 4, and higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The Core 3 201E has a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.20 GHz and supports ECC memory. The Core 3 201E also has a lower TDP of 60 watts compared to 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA has 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 2.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. TDP values are 60 watts for the Core 3 201E and 65 watts for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

The sockets are different: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 235TA uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 201E has no architecture field listed but is identified by the codename Bartlett Lake and generation "Core 3 (Bartlett Lake)". The Core Ultra 5 235TA has the architecture Arrow Lake, codename Arrow Lake-S, and generation "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)". The process node is 10 nm for the Core 3 201E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. The foundry is Intel for the Core 3 201E and TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

Transistor count is not listed for the Core 3 201E, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA has 17,800 million transistors. Die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E and 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. Cache configurations differ at every level. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB L3 shared. The Core Ultra 5 235TA has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB L3 shared.

Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E, and DDR5 only for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. Both use dual-channel memory, but memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra 5 235TA. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 3 201E and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 235TA. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 3 201E and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

The market segment for both is Desktop. Both processors are Active in production status. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 235TA was released on 2025-07-28. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 235TA is $269. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 201E and SRWPP for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E wins in scenarios that benefit from its higher base clock and lower power draw. With a base clock of 3.60 GHz, it can sustain higher frequencies under moderate loads compared to the Core Ultra 5 235TA, which has a base clock of 2.20 GHz. The Core 3 201E also has a lower TDP of 60 watts, making it a more efficient choice for systems where thermal output is a concern. Its support for ECC memory makes it suitable for applications that require error correction, such as certain server or workstation tasks. The Core 3 201E also supports DDR4 memory, which can be an advantage in systems that use existing DDR4 modules rather than requiring a DDR5 upgrade.

The Core 3 201E has measured benchmark data in the database, with an average benchmark score of 19,056 and a percentile ranking of 73. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.4 percent of its average score, indicating that it performs at a level consistent with established mid-range processors. In Cinebench R23, it scores 12,613 in multicore and 1,780 in single-core. In PassMark, its strongest results are in data compression at 164,160 and integer math at 43,894. These numbers give the Core 3 201E a measurable baseline for comparison, which is not available for the Core Ultra 5 235TA.

The Core Ultra 5 235TA wins on core count, cache capacity, memory bandwidth, and PCIe lane count. With 14 cores and 14 threads, it offers significantly more parallel processing capacity than the Core 3 201E, which has 4 cores and 8 threads. The larger L3 cache of 24 MB, compared to 12 MB, and the larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, 192 KB and 3 MB versus 80 KB and 1.25 MB, provide more on-die data storage. The memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is 33.3 percent higher than the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 3 201E. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are more than the 16 lanes on the Core 3 201E, which can support additional high-speed devices.

The Core Ultra 5 235TA uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, which is a more advanced manufacturing node than the 10 nm process used by the Core 3 201E. It has a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, which can benefit single-threaded workloads that rely on maximum frequency. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU, while the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 235TA supports only DDR5 memory, which aligns with newer platform requirements.

The absence of benchmark scores for the Core Ultra 5 235TA means its measured performance cannot be compared directly to the Core 3 201E in the database. The Core 3 201E has a percentile ranking of 73, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA has a percentile ranking of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0. These figures reflect the availability of data rather than relative performance. The Core 3 201E is a capable processor for workloads that benefit from its measured single-thread and multithread scores, while the Core Ultra 5 235TA offers architectural advantages in core count, cache, and memory bandwidth that suggest strong performance in multi-core and memory-intensive tasks once benchmark data becomes available.