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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the Intel Core 3 201E with zero wins. The most striking margin appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 452 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -87.4%. That represents the largest relative gap in the entire comparison, indicating a substantial advantage in integer-heavy primality workloads.

Cinebench results follow a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers 42,718 points versus 12,613 for the Core 3 201E, a -70.5% delta. The same percentage gap applies to Cinebench R23 singlecore, where scores are 6,030 and 1,780 respectively. Every Cinebench iteration, from R15 to R20 to R23, shows the identical -70.5% difference, which suggests the performance ratio between these two processors is remarkably stable across rendering generations.

PassMark tests reveal varying deltas. Data encryption shows the smallest relative win for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at -78.4%, with scores of 41,292 versus 8,931. Floating point math records -79.2% (159,824 versus 33,260), while extended instructions land at -74.3% (42,880 versus 11,035). Integer math shows a narrower gap at -64.3% (123,030 versus 43,894), and physics tests produce -64.2% (3,183 versus 1,141). Random string sorting sits at -73.5% (67,209 versus 17,783), and data compression at -70.3% (553,155 versus 164,160).

The smallest overall delta appears in PassMark single-thread tests, where the Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by only -25.9%, scoring 4,698 versus 3,482. This indicates that while the larger processor dominates heavily in multi-threaded and parallel workloads, its single-core advantage is comparatively modest. Multithread performance shows a -70.4% delta (50,146 versus 14,839), reinforcing the pattern that the core-count difference drives most of the separation.

In absolute terms, the average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 66,159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056, which corresponds to the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor confirm their respective positions: the Core 3 201E sits within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (avg score 19,047) and the Intel Core i5-12400F (avg score 19,039), while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus trades within 1.1% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (avg score 65,914) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (avg score 66,855).

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in construction. The Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process manufactured by Intel, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. This node difference contributes to the substantial gap in transistor count and die size. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 3 201E lists no transistor figure but carries a 163 mm² die.

Core and thread counts differ fundamentally. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 18 cores and 18 threads. That the thread count equals the core count for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus indicates no hyper-threading, whereas the Core 3 201E doubles its threads over cores. Clock speeds also favor the larger chip: the Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies scale accordingly. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus more than doubles each level: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Power envelopes also differ, with the Core 3 201E rated at 60 W TDP versus 125 W for the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but reaches 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics represent a major functional difference. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A). Socket compatibility is separate: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel Socket 1851. The multiplier is locked on the Core 3 201E but unlocked on the Ultra 5 250KF Plus, permitting overclocking on the latter.

Codename and generation also differ. The Core 3 201E belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus comes from Arrow Lake Refresh under the Core Ultra Series 2. Release dates are separated by roughly 14 months: the Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12, and the Ultra 5 250KF Plus on 2026-03-10. The part numbers are SRVTR and SA4V3 respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The data leaves no ambiguity about which processor wins in raw performance: the Ultra 5 250KF Plus takes every benchmark in the comparison. For multi-threaded rendering, Cinebench R23 multicore shows the Ultra 5 250KF Plus at 42,718 versus 12,613, more than three times the Core 3 201E output. Similar ratios appear in PassMark multithread (50,146 versus 14,839) and integer math (123,030 versus 43,894). Any workload that scales across cores will strongly favor the 18-core chip.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also leads in single-thread performance, though by a smaller margin. PassMark single-thread shows 4,698 versus 3,482, a -25.9% difference. Cinebench R23 singlecore records 6,030 versus 1,780, a -70.5% gap that is larger than the PassMark single-thread delta. This suggests the Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a meaningful clock and IPC advantage, but the single-thread gap is not as overwhelming as the multi-thread one.

For the Core 3 201E, its only advantages are qualitative rather than quantitative. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, meaning it can output video without a discrete GPU, whereas the Ultra 5 250KF Plus requires a separate graphics card. The Core 3 201E also supports DDR4 memory, which may allow reuse of existing memory modules, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is restricted to DDR5. Its 60 W TDP indicates substantially lower power draw than the 125 W Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which could matter in thermally constrained systems.

The Core 3 201E also uses the older Socket 1700 platform, which may be compatible with existing motherboards, while the Ultra 5 250KF Plus requires Socket 1851. Neither processor has a benchmark win to its name, so any use-case split must rely on these architectural and feature differences rather than performance measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also has 18 threads, while the Core 3 201E has 8 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The PassMark find prime numbers test shows the largest relative gap, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 452 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of -87.4%.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

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

Q: What is the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest delta at -25.9%, with the Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 4,698 versus 3,482 for the Core 3 201E.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 201E has a locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the superior processor for virtually any performance-sensitive task. Its 18 cores and 18 threads deliver more than three times the multi-threaded Cinebench R23 score (42,718 versus 12,613) and nearly four times the PassMark multithread score (50,146 versus 14,839). The -70.5% delta across all Cinebench tests, combined with the -64.3% to -87.4% range in PassMark workloads, demonstrates a consistent and substantial advantage. The 93rd percentile ranking versus 73rd percentile further confirms the separation in overall capability.

The single-thread gap, while smaller at -25.9% in PassMark, still favors the Ultra 5 250KF Plus by a clear margin. The higher base clock (4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz) and boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz) support this result. For users who prioritize rendering, compilation, data processing, or any parallel workload, the Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice based on measured scores.

The Core 3 201E retains relevance only in specific scenarios where its features matter more than raw throughput. Its integrated UHD Graphics 730 enables display output without a discrete GPU, which the Ultra 5 250KF Plus cannot do. The 60 W TDP suggests lower power consumption, and the dual DDR4/DDR5 support offers memory flexibility. These factors make it a plausible option for basic desktop tasks, legacy memory reuse, or systems without dedicated graphics, but the data shows no performance scenario where it wins.

The Ultra 5 250KF Plus also offers overclocking capability through its unlocked multiplier, a feature absent on the Core 3 201E. The larger L3 cache (30 MB versus 12 MB) and higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s) further support its position. Any buyer choosing between these two should base the decision on whether the integrated graphics and lower power draw of the Core 3 201E outweigh the overwhelming performance lead of the Ultra 5 250KF Plus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 4 | 18 |

| Threads | 8 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 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) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake Refresh |

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

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $184 |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-10 |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SA4V3 |