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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX. Across all 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Core Ultra 5 245HX finishes ahead, with the Core 3 201E recording zero wins. The most extreme gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 359 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a deficit of 84.1 percent. This is a workload that stresses integer iteration and branch prediction, and the result indicates a massive throughput advantage for the Arrow Lake-HX part.

In the Cinebench suite, the margins are consistent. The R23 multi-core test shows the Core Ultra 5 245HX at 32358 points versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a 61 percent advantage. Single-core R23 also favors the Core Ultra 5 245HX at 4568 points against 1780, again a 61 percent lead. The same 61 percent delta appears in R15 multi-core (3261 vs 1271) and R20 multi-core (13590 vs 5297). Single-core deltas in R15 and R20 sit at 61.1 percent, nearly identical to the multi-core margins. This pattern suggests that the Core Ultra 5 245HX does not merely scale better with more cores; it also wins on a per-thread basis by a wide margin.

PassMark integer math shows the smallest multi-threaded gap, with the Core Ultra 5 245HX scoring 92150 versus 43894 for the Core 3 201E, a 52.4 percent difference. Floating point math widens to 72.5 percent, with scores of 120735 and 33260 respectively. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 245HX at 393071 against 164160, a 58.2 percent lead, while data encryption shows a 70.3 percent gap (30022 vs 8931). Extended instructions, which exercise SIMD and specialized opcodes, come in at 64.6 percent in favor of the Core Ultra 5 245HX (31212 vs 11035).

The PassMark multithread score records 38069 for the Core Ultra 5 245HX against 14839 for the Core 3 201E, a 61 percent difference that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core results. Physics simulation shows a 54.8 percent gap (2526 vs 1141). Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive workload, lands at 62.7 percent in favor of the Core Ultra 5 245HX (47616 vs 17783). The narrowest single-thread gap appears in PassMark single thread: 4481 versus 3482, a 22.3 percent difference. This is still a decisive win, but it reveals that the Core 3 201E has relatively stronger single-thread performance compared to its multi-thread showing, though it remains clearly behind.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Core Ultra 5 245HX at 48287, compared to 19056 for the Core 3 201E. Percentile rankings confirm the separation: the Core Ultra 5 245HX sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 245HX include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A at 48201 (0.2 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at 48171 (0.2 percent behind), and the Intel Core i5-14600K at 48618 (0.7 percent ahead). For the Core 3 201E, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 (0 percent delta), the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039 (0.1 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18982 (0.4 percent ahead). The data places these two processors in entirely different performance strata, with no overlap in their competitive neighborhoods.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two Intel parts is substantial. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It packs 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach that thread count. The Core Ultra 5 245HX, by contrast, uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. It contains 14 cores and 14 threads, with no Hyper-Threading, meaning every core is a physical core.

The transistor counts reflect the process and design differences. The Core Ultra 5 245HX integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 3 201E has no recorded transistor count but occupies a 163 mm² die. The smaller process node for the Arrow Lake part enables a much higher transistor density, which helps explain the large core count increase despite a modest die size jump.

Cache hierarchies differ at every level. 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 245HX has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. This means the Core Ultra 5 245HX has more than double the L1 and L2 per core, and exactly double the L3 capacity. For workloads that repeatedly access working sets, the larger caches reduce memory traffic and explain part of the benchmark advantage.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the recorded memory bandwidth differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 5 245HX. The higher bandwidth on the Ultra part aligns with its larger cache footprint, providing a more capable memory subsystem overall. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra 5 245HX.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Both support PCIe Gen 5, but the Ultra part has four additional lanes for expansion or storage. Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units.

Socket types separate the two entirely. The Core 3 201E fits Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a mobile soldered package. The Core 3 201E has a locked multiplier, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Both parts were released on the same date, 2025-01-12, and both carry active production status. The market segments differ: the Core 3 201E is a Desktop part, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX is a Mobile part.

The TDP figures are close, with the Core 3 201E rated at 60 watts and the Core Ultra 5 245HX at 55 watts. The Core Ultra 5 245HX delivers dramatically higher performance within a lower power envelope, which the benchmark data confirms. The base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 3.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 245HX, but the boost clocks tell a different story: 4.80 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. The Ultra part starts lower but boosts higher, and the per-core performance results show it makes better use of that headroom.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every recorded benchmark, with single-thread leads between 22.3 and 61.1 percent and multi-thread leads mostly clustered around 61 percent. The average benchmark score of 48287 versus 19056 places the Core Ultra 5 245HX in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. These are not adjacent performance classes; they are separated by more than a factor of two in average score.

The Core 3 201E does have advantages in specific areas. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 245HX does not. It also supports DDR4, which can be useful for systems reusing older memory modules. Its socket, Intel Socket 1700, is a desktop standard with a wide range of compatible motherboards. The locked multiplier is a limitation for overclockers, but the part targets a different usage profile.

The Core Ultra 5 245HX, however, wins on nearly every technical merit. It has more cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, a smaller process node, a higher boost clock, an unlocked multiplier, and a lower TDP. It also uses a mobile BGA package, which means it is intended for laptops or all-in-one systems rather than socketed desktop builds. The Arc Xe-LPG integrated graphics with 48 execution units represent a more capable GPU block than the UHD Graphics 730.

For users who need ECC memory or DDR4 compatibility, the Core 3 201E is the only option between these two. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, single-thread responsiveness, cache capacity, or memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 5 245HX is the clear choice. The benchmark data shows no workload category where the Core 3 201E manages to close the gap, let alone take a lead.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the recorded data:

• Cores: 4 (Core 3 201E) vs 14 (Core Ultra 5 245HX)
• Threads: 8 vs 14
• Base clock: 3.60 GHz vs 3.10 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz vs 5.10 GHz
• TDP: 60 W vs 55 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 vs Intel BGA 2114
• Codename: Bartlett Lake vs Arrow Lake-HX
• Generation: Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) vs Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-HX)
• Process node: 10 nm vs 3 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: not recorded vs 17,800 million
• Die size: 163 mm² vs 243 mm²
• L1 cache per core: 80 KB vs 192 KB
• L2 cache per core: 1.25 MB vs 3 MB
• L3 cache shared: 12 MB vs 24 MB
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 vs DDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• ECC memory: true vs false
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes vs Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU
• Market segment: Desktop vs Mobile
• Multiplier unlocked: false vs true
• Part number: SRVTR vs SRVFM
• Launch MSRP: $134 vs not recorded
• Average benchmark score: 19056 vs 48287
• Percentile vs all CPUs: 73 vs 90

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has 14 cores, compared to 4 cores for the Intel Core 3 201E. The Core Ultra 5 245HX also has 14 threads, while the Core 3 201E has 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in single-thread workloads?

A: In PassMark single thread, the Core Ultra 5 245HX scores 4481 versus 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a 22.3 percent advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap widens to 61 percent, with scores of 4568 and 1780.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 3 201E has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 3.10 GHz.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra 5 245HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a mobile package.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245HX has an average benchmark score of 48287, while the Core 3 201E has an average score of 19056. The Core Ultra 5 245HX sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in find prime numbers, where it leads by 84.1 percent, and floating point math, where it leads by 72.5 percent. Data encryption shows a 70.3 percent lead, extended instructions a 64.6 percent lead, and random string sorting a 62.7 percent lead. Multi-thread workloads across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show 61 percent leads. Physics simulation comes in at 54.8 percent ahead, integer math at 52.4 percent ahead, and data compression at 58.2 percent ahead. The smallest margin, 22.3 percent, appears in PassMark single thread, but it is still a clear victory.

The Intel Core 3 201E wins in no benchmark comparisons. Its advantages are limited to non-performance specifications: ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, a desktop socket, and a recorded launch MSRP of $134. For systems that require ECC memory or want to reuse DDR4 modules, the Core 3 201E is the only candidate. Its 60 W TDP is slightly higher than the 55 W TDP of the Core Ultra 5 245HX, so it does not even claim an efficiency win in the recorded data.

The use-case split falls along platform lines rather than workload lines. The Core 3 201E serves a socketed desktop role with legacy memory support and error correction. The Core Ultra 5 245HX serves a mobile role with higher performance across the board, more PCIe lanes, larger caches, faster memory bandwidth, and a more capable integrated GPU. The benchmark data does not show any workload where the Core 3 201E would be preferable on performance grounds. The choice between these two parts, according to the recorded data, comes down to platform requirements and feature support, not compute capability.