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

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF records an average benchmark score of 55093, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 201E averages 19056, which lands in the 73rd percentile. The Ultra 5 holds a substantial overall performance advantage.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 245KF leads in the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 4715 versus 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -26.2% when viewed from the Core 3's perspective. The Cinebench R23 single-core results show a larger gap: 5173 for the Ultra 5 versus 1780 for the Core 3.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Core 3 201E wins?

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Core Ultra 5 245KF wins every single test. The Core 3 201E records zero wins.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra 5 does not use Hyper-Threading, so its thread count equals its core count.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 245KF supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Intel Core 3 201E does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins in every single measured category. The Core 3 201E does not secure a single victory across the 17 head-to-head tests. This is not a close contest; the Ultra 5 is decisively ahead in all workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 245KF dominates in heavily multi-threaded tasks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 36647 versus 12613 for the Core 3, a difference of -65.6% from the Core 3's perspective. The Passmark multi-thread test shows a similar story: 43110 versus 14839, again -65.6%. For users running rendering, compilation, or other parallel workloads, the Ultra 5 is the clear choice.

The single-threaded gap is smaller but still significant. The Passmark single-thread score for the Ultra 5 is 4715, while the Core 3 manages 3482, a -26.2% difference. This translates to a noticeable advantage in everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications, though the gap is narrower than in multi-core tests.

Specialized instruction workloads show some of the largest deltas. The Passmark extended instructions test has the Ultra 5 scoring 37912 versus 11035 for the Core 3, a -70.9% difference. The find prime numbers test is even more lopsided: 416 versus 57, a -86.3% delta. The Ultra 5 is also far ahead in floating-point math, scoring 131546 versus 33260, a -74.7% gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different Intel designs. The Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It is a desktop part with a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 245KF uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and is built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC. Its die is larger at 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors.

The core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra 5 relies on physical cores only, without simultaneous multithreading. The Core 3 uses traditional Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 201E has an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, an L2 of 1.25 MB per core, and a shared L3 of 12 MB. The Core Ultra 5 245KF has a larger L1 of 192 KB per core, an L2 of 3 MB per core, and a shared L3 of 24 MB. These larger caches contribute to the Ultra 5's performance advantage in memory-sensitive workloads.

The sockets are incompatible. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF uses Intel Socket 1851. This means the two chips require different motherboards. The Core 3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 is DDR5-only. The Ultra 5 also has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics (N/A). This is a notable distinction for users who do not plan to install a discrete GPU.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the Core Ultra 5 245KF is 4.20 GHz, higher than the Core 3 201E's 3.60 GHz. The boost clock also favors the Ultra 5 at 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is substantially different: the Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF has a TDP of 125 watts.

The PCIe support differs in lane count. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 245KF provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Ultra 5 additional bandwidth for expansion devices.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201E but absent on the Core Ultra 5 245KF. The Core 3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5.

The release dates differ. The Core Ultra 5 245KF was released on 2024-10-23, while the Core 3 201E followed on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 245KF is $294.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Core Ultra 5 245KF, enabling overclocking. The Core 3 201E has a locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the Core Ultra 5 245KF comes in the Passmark find prime numbers test. The Ultra 5 scores 416, while the Core 3 manages only 57, a delta of -86.3%. This extreme gap indicates a massive advantage in integer-heavy, math-oriented single-threaded workloads.

The data encryption test shows a -73.2% delta. The Ultra 5 scores 33381, while the Core 3 scores 8931. This suggests the Ultra 5 has significantly stronger cryptographic throughput.

Floating-point math is another area of decisive superiority. The Ultra 5 records 131546, versus 33260 for the Core 3, a -74.7% difference. The extended instructions test shows a -70.9% delta, with scores of 37912 and 11035 respectively.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent -65.6% deltas across all tests. In R15 multi-core, the Ultra 5 scores 3693 versus 1271. In R15 single-core, it is 521 versus 179. R20 multi-core is 15391 versus 5297, and R20 single-core is 2172 versus 747. R23 multi-core is 36647 versus 12613, and R23 single-core is 5173 versus 1780.

The Passmark multi-thread and physics tests follow the same pattern. Multi-thread scores are 43110 versus 14839, a -65.6% delta. Physics scores are 2998 versus 1141, a -61.9% delta. Random string sorting shows a -67.8% delta, with scores of 55206 and 17783.

The smallest margin is in the Passmark single-thread test, where the Ultra 5 scores 4715 versus 3482 for the Core 3, a -26.2% delta. Data compression shows a -64.3% delta, with scores of 460123 and 164160. Integer math has a -55.6% delta, with scores of 98854 and 43894.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every recorded benchmark, with no exceptions. The Ultra 5 wins all 17 head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 55093 places it in the 91st percentile, compared to the Core 3's 73rd percentile.

For workloads that depend on multi-core scaling, the choice is straightforward. The Ultra 5's 14 physical cores and larger cache configuration deliver multi-core scores that are roughly 2.9 times higher than the Core 3 across the Cinebench suite. The Core 3's 4 cores and 8 threads cannot compete in rendering, encoding, or other parallel tasks.

For users prioritizing single-threaded performance, the Ultra 5 still holds a meaningful edge. The Passmark single-thread gap of -26.2% is significant, and the Cinebench R23 single-core gap of -65.6% is even larger. The Ultra 5's higher base and boost clocks, along with its newer 3 nm process, contribute to this advantage.

The Core 3 201E does retain some distinct attributes. It supports DDR4 memory, which can lower platform costs, and it includes integrated graphics, allowing operation without a discrete GPU. It also has ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Ultra 5. Its 60-watt TDP is notably lower than the Ultra 5's 125-watt TDP, making it a more power-conscious option.

However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The Core 3 201E is positioned for basic desktop tasks, while the Core Ultra 5 245KF is a high-performance part. The Core Ultra 5 245KF is the stronger processor by a wide margin, and the recorded data supports no other conclusion.