Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 represent two very different positions in Intel’s desktop lineup. The Core 3 201E is a modest 4-core part built on an older process, while the Core Ultra 5 245 is a 14-core design on a newer node with a substantially larger cache and memory bandwidth. The benchmark data recorded in the database shows a consistent and often massive performance gap between the two, with the Core Ultra 5 245 winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis walks through those results, the architectural reasons behind them, and where each processor fits based solely on the recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 17 direct benchmark comparisons between these two processors, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins every single one. There are no wins for the Intel Core 3 201E in any test. The margin varies from a relatively narrow single-thread gap to a crushing deficit in prime number computation.

Starting with Cinebench, the multi-core scores show a dominant lead for the Core Ultra 5 245. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 3318 against 1271 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -61.7%. That same -61.7% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (13828 vs 5297) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (32924 vs 12613). The consistency of that percentage across all three Cinebench multi-core tests indicates a stable performance ratio rather than a test-specific anomaly. The Core Ultra 5 245 is roughly 2.6 times faster in these multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, though with a slightly different magnitude. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 468 versus 179, a -61.8% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1952 against 747, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4648 against 1780, both at -61.7%. The single-thread advantage is essentially identical to the multi-thread advantage in these tests, which suggests the per-core architectural improvements in the Core Ultra 5 245 are the primary driver, rather than just the higher core count.

PassMark results expand the picture beyond rendering. The data compression test shows the Core Ultra 5 245 at 400942 versus 164160, a -59.1% delta. Data encryption shows a larger gap: 30236 versus 8931, a -70.5% delta. Extended instructions score 33304 versus 11035, a -66.9% gap. The prime number test is the most lopsided of all: 365 versus 57, a -84.4% delta. That result suggests the Core Ultra 5 245 handles integer-heavy, branch-dense workloads with far greater efficiency. Floating point math follows at -72.4% (120548 vs 33260), while integer math shows a smaller but still decisive -51.9% gap (91187 vs 43894).

The PassMark multi-thread score for the Core Ultra 5 245 is 38706 versus 14839, a -61.7% delta, matching the Cinebench multi-core pattern exactly. Physics testing shows 2569 versus 1141, a -55.6% gap. Random string sorting comes in at 49140 versus 17783, a -63.8% delta. The single-thread PassMark scores are the closest comparison in the entire set: 4394 versus 3482, a -20.8% delta. That is the smallest relative gap recorded, but the Core Ultra 5 245 still wins by a clear margin.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects this overall dominance. The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average score of 48995, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201E has an average score of 19056, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 245 include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196, -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228, -0.5%), Intel Xeon Gold 5318H (48698, 0.6%), and Intel Core i5-14600K (48618, 0.8%). For the Core 3 201E, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0%), Intel Core i5-12400F (19039, 0.1%), Intel Core i5-1335U (18982, 0.4%), and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979, 0.4%). These rival comparisons show that the Core Ultra 5 245 sits in a much higher performance tier, competing with Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 parts, while the Core 3 201E sits alongside older mainstream and mobile chips.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial and explains the benchmark results. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC. The move from 10 nm Intel to 3 nm TSMC represents a major shrink, which typically allows for higher clock speeds, lower power per transistor, and more transistors in the same die area.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect that difference. The Core Ultra 5 245 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Core 3 201E has no transistor count recorded in the database, but its die size is listed at 163 mm². Even without the transistor figure, the Core Ultra 5 245 packs far more hardware into a larger area.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The thread count being equal to the core count on the Ultra 5 indicates no Hyper-Threading on that part, while the Core 3 201E doubles its threads through simultaneous multithreading. Despite having fewer threads than cores on the Ultra 5, the raw core count advantage (14 versus 4) gives it a 3.5x physical core advantage.

Cache hierarchies amplify the difference. 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 5 245 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. That is 2.4x more L1 per core, 2.4x more L2 per core, and exactly 2x more L3 total. For workloads that fit in cache, this is a decisive advantage.

Clock speeds also favor the Core Ultra 5 245. The base clock is 3.50 GHz versus 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E, a small disadvantage for the Ultra 5. But the boost clock is 5.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, a 300 MHz advantage under load. The combination of a higher boost clock and much larger cache allows the Ultra 5 to sustain higher single-thread performance.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 245 supports only DDR5. Both are dual-channel, but the memory bandwidth is not equal: the Core Ultra 5 245 has 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E. That is a 25.6 GB/s gap, roughly a third more bandwidth for the Ultra 5.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 201E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 245 provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E has UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851.

Power ratings are close. The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has a TDP of 65 watts. Despite drawing only 5 watts more, the Ultra 5 delivers dramatically higher performance, which indicates far better performance-per-watt on the newer process.

Release dates are close as well. The Core Ultra 5 245 was released on 2025-01-06, while the Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 245 is $270.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 5 has 10 more physical cores, though the Core 3 201E uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count.

Q: How much faster is the Core Ultra 5 245 in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32924 versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a -61.7% delta. The PassMark multi-thread score shows 38706 versus 14839, also a -61.7% delta. The Ultra 5 is roughly 2.6 times faster across these multi-threaded tests.

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

A: The database records 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Core Ultra 5 245 wins all 17. The Core 3 201E has zero wins. The closest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the Ultra 5 leads by -20.8%.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 245 supports only DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 245.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 245 uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not interchangeable.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245 has an average benchmark score of 48995, placing it near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196) and AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228). The Core 3 201E has an average score of 19056, placing it near the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047) and Intel Core i5-12400F (19039).

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 14 |

| Threads | 8 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | (Bartlett Lake) | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| 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 |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $270 |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SRVFE |

Both processors have ECC memory support, dual-channel memory bus, active production status, desktop market segment, and locked multipliers. Neither has a v-cache option.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. The 17 out of 17 win count, the 90th percentile ranking versus 73rd, and the average score of 48995 versus 19056 all confirm that this is not a close contest. The Core Ultra 5 245 delivers more than double the average performance, with the largest gaps appearing in prime number computation (-84.4%) and data encryption (-70.5%), and the smallest gap in single-thread PassMark (-20.8%).

The architectural advantages of the Core Ultra 5 245 are consistent with the benchmark results. The 3 nm TSMC process node, 14 cores, 24 MB of L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a foundation for the observed performance. The Core 3 201E, with its 10 nm process, 4 cores, 12 MB of L3, and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, is simply outclassed in every workload category.

The Core 3 201E does have advantages in certain specifications. It supports DDR4 memory, which may be relevant for systems with existing DDR4 modules. Its base clock is 100 MHz higher. Its TDP is 5 watts lower. Its launch MSRP is lower. But none of these translate into a benchmark win. The data shows no workload where the Core 3 201E outperforms the Core Ultra 5 245.

For users focused on the recorded performance metrics, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the clear choice. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 and Intel Core i5-14600K, placing it in a high-performance desktop tier. The Core 3 201E, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F, a much lower performance bracket.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. That includes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests, as well as all PassMark tests: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multi-thread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread. The largest relative wins are in prime numbers (-84.4%) and floating point math (-72.4%). The smallest relative win is in PassMark single-thread (-20.8%).

The Intel Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark in the database. Its strengths appear only in non-performance specifications: DDR4 memory support, a 3.60 GHz base clock versus 3.50 GHz, a 60 watt TDP versus 65 watts, and a lower launch MSRP. These attributes do not appear in the benchmark results, so they do not translate into any measured performance advantage.

The use-case split based on the data is therefore one-sided. Workloads that benefit from high multi-thread performance, such as Cinebench rendering, clearly favor the Core Ultra 5 245. Workloads that rely on encryption, compression, or extended instruction sets also favor the Ultra 5 by large margins. Even single-threaded tasks, where the core count matters less, favor the Ultra 5 due to its higher boost clock, larger cache, and newer process node.

The only scenario where the Core 3 201E could be considered is one where the recorded performance metrics are not the primary concern. For a system that must use DDR4 memory or requires a lower TDP, the Core 3 201E offers those specific specification matches. But within the benchmark data, the Core Ultra 5 245 is the decisive winner across all 17 comparisons, and no workload category shows a Core 3 201E advantage.