Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 236V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V is decisive in one direction. Across 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 236V claims 16 victories, while the Core 3 201E secures a single win. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 236V is 21952, placing it at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E averages 19056 and sits at the 73rd percentile.

The single most lopsided result appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Core Ultra 5 236V scores 171 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of 66.7 percent in favor of the mobile part. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison. Floating point math shows a similarly large divide: the Core Ultra 5 236V records 52774 versus 33260, a 37 percent advantage. Data encryption also favors the Core Ultra 5 236V by 31.6 percent, with scores of 13049 and 8931 respectively.

The Cinebench suite paints a consistent picture. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Core Ultra 5 236V wins both single-core and multi-core runs by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 236V scores 15628 against 12613, a 19.3 percent lead. Its single-core R23 score of 2206 beats the 1780 of the Core 3 201E, also by 19.3 percent. The R15 and R20 results mirror this pattern: 1575 versus 1271 in R15 multi-core, 222 versus 179 in R15 single-core, 6563 versus 5297 in R20 multi-core, and 926 versus 747 in R20 single-core. Every one of these Cinebench deltas sits at 19.3 or 19.4 percent.

PassMark multi-thread performance follows the same trend. The Core Ultra 5 236V scores 18375, which is 19.2 percent ahead of the 14839 recorded by the Core 3 201E. Physics performance shows a 24.1 percent gap, with 1503 against 1141. Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 5 236V by 17.8 percent, with scores of 21628 and 17783. Extended instructions give the Core Ultra 5 236V a 28.6 percent edge, 15451 versus 11035. Even data compression, the closest PassMark result, goes to the Core Ultra 5 236V by 7 percent, 176554 against 164160.

The one countervailing data point is PassMark integer math. Here the Core 3 201E takes the win with 43894, a 13.2 percent advantage over the 38765 posted by the Core Ultra 5 236V. Single-thread PassMark performance also favors the Core Ultra 5 236V, but by a smaller margin: 3893 versus 3482, a 10.6 percent lead.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for both parts. The Core 3 201E trades nearly evenly with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which has an average score of 19047 and a delta of 0 percent. It also sits close to the Intel Core i5-12400F, at 19039 with a 0.1 percent delta, and the Intel Core i5-1335U, at 18982 with a 0.4 percent delta. The Core Ultra 5 236V, by contrast, compares most closely to the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V, which averages 21981 with a delta of -0.1 percent. The Intel Core i7-11700F and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X both average 21988 and 21992 respectively, each with a -0.2 percent delta, while the AMD EPYC 9534 trails by 0.2 percent at 21900.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The Intel Core 3 201E is a desktop part built on the Bartlett Lake codename, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². It ships in the Intel Socket 1700 package and carries a 60 watt TDP. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Lunar Lake architecture, and is fabbed by TSMC on a 3 nm process. It is a mobile part in an Intel BGA 2833 socket with a 17 watt TDP. The process node difference, 10 nm versus 3 nm, is substantial and explains part of the efficiency gap between the two.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach that thread count. The Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no multithreading. Despite having the same thread count as the Core 3 201E's 8 threads, the Core Ultra 5 236V delivers higher multi-threaded scores across every Cinebench test, indicating that its additional physical cores more than compensate for the lack of SMT.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 236V runs at a 2.10 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The Core 3 201E has the higher rated clocks, but the Core Ultra 5 236V still wins every single-threaded benchmark except PassMark integer math. This suggests that instructions per clock, not raw frequency, drive the Core Ultra 5 236V's single-thread advantage.

Cache hierarchies also differ. 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 Core Ultra 5 236V has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 236V has more L1 and L2 per core, while the Core 3 201E has 4 MB more shared L3. Memory support also diverges: the Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 236V lists memory support as dependent on the motherboard, also dual-channel, with no ECC support and no recorded bandwidth figure.

PCIe connectivity favors the desktop part. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 236V offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 236V carries Arc 130V. The Core Ultra 5 236V launched on 2024-09-23, while the Core 3 201E followed on 2025-01-12. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134. Both parts are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V wins in almost every measurable workload category. Its largest margins come in prime number finding, floating point math, and encryption. These are compute-heavy tasks that benefit from the 8 physical cores and the newer 3 nm process. Extended instructions also favor the Core Ultra 5 236V by 28.6 percent, making it the stronger choice for workloads that exercise SIMD and other specialized instruction paths.

The Core Ultra 5 236V also dominates in rendering and content creation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15628 versus 12613 represents a 19.3 percent advantage, which is meaningful for CPU-bound rendering tasks. Single-core performance follows the same direction, so even lightly threaded workloads such as older applications or certain simulation tools will run faster on the Core Ultra 5 236V. The 17 watt TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light mobile systems where power draw is a constraint.

The Intel Core 3 201E has one clear area of superiority: PassMark integer math. Its score of 43894 outpaces the Core Ultra 5 236V by 13.2 percent. Integer-heavy workloads, such as certain database operations, compression algorithms, or general office productivity tasks, will perform better on the Core 3 201E. The desktop part also offers ECC memory support, which the Core Ultra 5 236V lacks, making it the only one of the two that can be used in systems requiring error-correcting memory. The 16-lane PCIe Gen 5 interface provides more expansion headroom for discrete GPUs or storage controllers, and the 12 MB of shared L3 cache is larger than the 8 MB on the Core Ultra 5 236V.

The Core 3 201E sits in a desktop socket with a 60 watt TDP and supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving platform flexibility. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock is the highest rated frequency of the two, even though the Core Ultra 5 236V wins most single-threaded tests anyway. For workloads that rely on raw clock speed and integer throughput, the Core 3 201E holds an edge.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 236V across 16 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 21952 is roughly 15 percent higher than the 19056 of the Core 3 201E, and its 75th percentile ranking versus the 73rd percentile of the Core 3 201E confirms the overall performance gap. The Core Ultra 5 236V is the faster part in rendering, single-threaded work, encryption, floating point, compression, physics, and extended instruction workloads. Its 8 physical cores and 3 nm process deliver higher performance at a fraction of the power draw: 17 watts versus 60 watts.

The Core 3 201E remains relevant for specific use cases. Its 13.2 percent victory in PassMark integer math is the sole benchmark win, and that advantage matters for integer-dominated workloads. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 3 201E, so systems that require ECC must use this part. The 16-lane PCIe Gen 5 interface also gives the desktop processor more room for expansion.

Buyers should choose based on workload. The Core Ultra 5 236V is the better all-around processor for general computing, content creation, and mobile deployments where power efficiency matters. The Core 3 201E is the appropriate pick for ECC-capable desktop builds and workloads that prioritize integer throughput. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V averages 21952, while the Intel Core 3 201E averages 19056.

Q: How many head-to-head tests does each processor win?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V wins 16 of 17 tests. The Intel Core 3 201E wins 1 test, PassMark integer math.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the biggest gap. The Core Ultra 5 236V scores 171 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a 66.7 percent difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 236V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 236V scores 15628 versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E. In single-core, the Core Ultra 5 236V scores 2206 versus 1780. Both deltas are 19.3 percent.