Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E records zero wins. The margin of victory varies dramatically by workload, from a relatively modest single-core gap to crushing multi-core deficits.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30,867 against the Core 3 201E's 12,613, a difference of 59.1%. The gap is even wider in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Ultra 5 delivers 18,442 points versus 5,297, a 71.3% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 4,640 versus 1,271, a 72.6% deficit for the smaller chip.

Single-core results are closer but still firmly favor the Core Ultra 5. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra 5 scores 2,261 against 1,780, a 21.3% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,603 versus 747, a 71.3% gap, and Cinebench R15 single-core records 328 versus 179, a 45.4% difference. The PassMark single-thread test puts the Ultra 5 at 4,757 and the Core 3 at 3,482, a 26.8% margin.

The data encryption workload produces the largest relative difference. The Ultra 5 scores 42,144 versus 8,931, a 78.8% lead. Find prime numbers follows closely at 88.3% (486 versus 57), while floating point math shows a 79.6% gap (162,692 versus 33,260). Extended instructions favor the Ultra 5 by 75.2% (44,565 versus 11,035). Random string sorting shows a 74.3% difference (69,090 versus 17,783). Data compression trails by 71.1% (568,721 versus 164,160). Integer math shows a 64.9% gap (125,091 versus 43,894). The PassMark multi-thread score favors the Ultra 5 by 71.2% (51,596 versus 14,839), and physics testing shows a 67.3% difference (3,494 versus 1,141).

The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66,855, while the Core 3 201E averages 19,056. That places the Ultra 5 in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 73rd percentile for the Core 3. The nearest rival to the Core 3 is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with an average score of 19,047, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19,039, a 0.1% delta. The Ultra 5, by contrast, sits near the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66,925 (a 0.1% gap) and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67,006 (a 0.2% gap). The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trails slightly at 66,159, a 1.1% delta.

The Verdict

The data indicates two processors aimed at entirely different segments. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the dominant part in every measured category. It delivers a 59.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 71.3% lead in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and a 78.8% lead in data encryption. It also holds a 93rd percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database, compared to the Core 3's 73rd percentile.

The Core 3 201E is not competitive on raw performance. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3,482 is 26.8% below the Ultra 5's 4,757. Its multi-thread PassMark score of 14,839 is 71.2% below the Ultra 5's 51,596. In every Cinebench iteration, the Ultra 5 more than doubles the Core 3's output, and in several workloads it more than quadruples it.

The production status of both parts is Active, and both are desktop processors from Intel. The Core 3 uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851, so they are not interchangeable in a motherboard. The Core 3 has a 60 TDP and a launch MSRP of $134. The Ultra 5 has a 125 TDP and a launch MSRP of $199.

For workloads that depend on multi-core throughput, the Ultra 5 is the clear selection. The Cinebench R23 multi-core gap of 18,254 points is substantial, and the data compression score of 568,721 against 164,160 indicates a large advantage in file-handling operations. The Ultra 5 also leads in single-core performance, so there is no workload category in the recorded measurements where the Core 3 closes the gap.

The Core 3's role is defined by its lower TDP and platform compatibility. It uses less power, with a 60 TDP versus 125, and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 supports only DDR5. The Core 3 also has a smaller die size at 163 mm² versus 243 mm², and it uses Intel's 10 nm process versus TSMC's 3 nm process for the Ultra 5. The Core 3 has ECC memory support, as does the Ultra 5, but the Core 3's memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 5.

The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 outperforms the Ultra 5. The wins count is 0 for the Core 3 and 17 for the Ultra 5. The percentile ranking difference of 20 points (73 versus 93) places the two parts in different performance classes entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantages rather than by category wins.

Multi-core rendering workloads show the largest absolute gaps. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the Ultra 5 an 18,254-point lead, and Cinebench R20 multi-core gives it a 13,145-point lead. These are workloads where the Ultra 5's 18 cores and 18 threads, compared to the Core 3's 4 cores and 8 threads, produce a decisive advantage. The Ultra 5's L3 cache of 30 MB shared, versus 12 MB shared for the Core 3, also supports larger working sets.

Encryption and compression workloads favor the Ultra 5 heavily. Data encryption shows a 33,213-point gap, and data compression shows a 404,561-point gap. The PassMark find prime numbers test, which stresses integer throughput, shows a 429-point gap (486 versus 57), an 88.3% difference. Floating point math shows a 129,432-point gap, and integer math shows an 81,197-point gap.

Single-threaded workloads are closer. The Cinebench R23 single-core gap is 481 points, and the PassMark single-thread gap is 1,275 points. The Ultra 5 still wins these tests, but the margins are smaller, indicating that the Core 3's 4.80 GHz boost clock is relatively competitive against the Ultra 5's 5.30 GHz boost clock. The Core 3's single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1,780 is 78.7% of the Ultra 5's 2,261.

The Core 3 201E offers advantages outside raw performance. Its 60 TDP is less than half the Ultra 5's 125 TDP, which matters for systems with limited cooling or power delivery. Its support for DDR4 memory allows builds using existing DDR4 modules, whereas the Ultra 5 requires DDR5. The Core 3's smaller die size of 163 mm² suggests lower manufacturing complexity relative to the Ultra 5's 243 mm² die. The Core 3 also uses Intel Socket 1700, a platform with broad motherboard availability, while the Ultra 5 requires the newer Intel Socket 1851.

The Core 3's integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so no direct comparison is possible from the recorded measurements. Both parts support ECC memory, and both support PCIe Gen 5, though the Ultra 5 offers 20 CPU lanes versus 16 for the Core 3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,855, compared to 19,056 for the Intel Core 3 201E.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ultra 5 scores 30,867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 59.1% higher than the Core 3's 12,613.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E win any benchmark against the Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 17 tests, and the Ultra 5 wins all 17. The Core 3 records zero wins.

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

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 5 leads in all single-thread tests. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4,757 versus 3,482, a 26.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,261 versus 1,780, a 21.3% advantage.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60, while the Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their underlying architecture. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and is built on TSMC's 3 nm process, with a transistor count of 17,800 million. The Core 3's die size is 163 mm², while the Ultra 5's die is 243 mm².

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 5 offers 18 cores and 18 threads. The lack of hyper-threading on the Ultra 5 means its thread count equals its core count, whereas the Core 3 doubles its threads through simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra 5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 is locked.

Cache hierarchies differ in both capacity and organization. The Core 3 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 5 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations on the Ultra 5, combined with 2.5 times the shared L3, contribute to its throughput advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support separates the two platforms. The Core 3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 exclusively. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Ultra 5's memory bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3. ECC memory support is present on both parts.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 5 provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Ultra 5 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5. Its base clock is 4.20 GHz and boost clock is 5.30 GHz, versus 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost for the Core 3. The Ultra 5's higher boost clock supports its single-core wins, while its higher core count and larger caches drive its multi-core dominance.

The socket platforms are incompatible. The Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core 3 belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation, while the Ultra 5 belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation within the Core Ultra Series 2. Release dates differ as well: the Core 3 launched on 2025-01-12, and the Ultra 5 on 2026-03-10. The part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 and SA4UZ for the Ultra 5.