Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins every single recorded comparison against the Intel Core 3 201E. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 5 336H takes all 17, with no wins for the Core 3 201E. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 336H is 34,485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E averages 19,056 and sits in the 73rd percentile. The Core Ultra 5 336H delivers roughly 81% higher average performance, a gap that shows up consistently across both synthetic rendering and computational workloads.

For desktop users who need a basic, low-power CPU for everyday tasks, the Core 3 201E is the only one of the two designed for that socket. It uses Intel Socket 1700, the desktop platform, and carries a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket, so it belongs in laptops rather than desktop builds. The data shows the Core 3 201E as the desktop choice, but the Core Ultra 5 336H as the performance choice in mobile systems. No benchmark result favors the Core 3 201E, so the verdict centers on platform fit rather than performance equality.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel design families. The Core 3 201E is part of the Bartlett Lake generation, built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². It uses a traditional layout with 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning each core can handle two threads. The Core Ultra 5 336H belongs to the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process node. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyperthreading, so each core handles a single thread.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The Core 3 201E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 336H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Panther Lake part give it more local data capacity, while the larger shared L3 pool benefits workloads that share data across cores.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the memory bandwidth differs: the Core 3 201E reaches 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 336H reaches 115.2 GB/s. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core Ultra 5 336H. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 336H provides Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Core 3 201E draws a 60 W TDP, whereas the Core Ultra 5 336H has a 25 W TDP, a notable gap given the latter has four times the cores. The Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz from a 3.60 GHz base, while the Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz from a 1.90 GHz base. Both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The widest margin appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 299 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of 80.9% in favor of the mobile chip. That workload is highly sensitive to core count and integer throughput, and the 16-core Panther Lake part dominates. The passmark_data_encryption test shows a 58.1% gap, with scores of 21,291 versus 8,931. Floating-point math also favors the Core Ultra 5 336H by 59.6%, scoring 82,415 versus 33,260. Physics simulation follows with a 57.5% delta, 2,682 versus 1,141.

The Cinebench suite shows consistent 47.4% to 47.5% deltas across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 336H scores 23,991 versus 12,613, a 47.4% advantage. Single-core R23 shows 3,387 versus 1,780, also 47.4%. The R20 tests repeat the pattern: multi-core 10,076 versus 5,297, single-core 1,422 versus 747. R15 results follow with 2,418 versus 1,271 multi-core and 341 versus 179 single-core.

The passmark_multithread test shows a 48% delta, 28,545 versus 14,839. Random string sorting comes in at 48.3%, 34,402 versus 17,783. Data compression shows a 41.4% delta, 280,340 versus 164,160. Extended instructions show a 55% delta, 24,542 versus 11,035. Integer math has the smallest multi-core gap at 29.3%, 62,070 versus 43,894, indicating the Core 3 201E is relatively less disadvantaged in integer operations.

The narrowest margin across all tests is passmark_single_thread, where the Core Ultra 5 336H leads by just 13.2%, scoring 4,013 versus 3,482. That result reflects the Core 3 201E's high 4.80 GHz boost clock, which helps it stay competitive in single-threaded work despite having fewer cores and an older process node. Still, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins even there, so the single-thread lead belongs to the Panther Lake chip.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows these differences between the two processors:

• Cores: 4 (Core 3 201E) versus 16 (Core Ultra 5 336H)
• Threads: 8 versus 16
• Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 1.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz
• TDP: 60 W versus 25 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2540
• Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm
• Die size: 163 mm² versus not recorded
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4, DDR5 versus DDR5, LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s
• ECC memory: supported versus not supported
• PCIe lanes: 16 CPU lanes versus 12 CPU lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics
• Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile
• Release date: 2025-01-12 versus 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: $134 versus not recorded
• Part number: SRVTR versus SA4RD

The Core 3 201E has higher clock speeds and a higher TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has more cores, more cache, a smaller process node, and higher memory bandwidth. The Core 3 201E supports ECC and DDR4, making it a fit for certain desktop workloads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H targets mobile with LPDDR5X support and a much lower power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 W.

Q: Which chip has faster memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 5 336H has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E.

Q: In which benchmark is the performance gap smallest?

A: The smallest gap is in passmark_single_thread, where the Core Ultra 5 336H leads by 13.2%, scoring 4,013 versus 3,482.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins in every measured category. The data records 17 wins for the Core Ultra 5 336H and 0 wins for the Core 3 201E. The mobile chip leads by double digits in every test, with margins ranging from 13.2% in single-threaded PassMark to 80.9% in prime number finding. Its 84th percentile ranking versus 73rd for the Core 3 201E reflects the overall performance hierarchy.

The Core 3 201E still holds specific platform advantages that are not benchmark-related. It is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, supports DDR4 memory, includes ECC memory capability, and has a 60 W TDP that suits desktop cooling. It also carries a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has no recorded launch price. For users building a desktop system with DDR4 or ECC requirements, the Core 3 201E is the only one of the two that fits.

The Core Ultra 5 336H is the clear performance pick for mobile systems. Its 3 nm process, 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver large advantages in multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, and physics workloads. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for thin laptops. The data shows no scenario where the Core 3 201E outperforms the Core Ultra 5 336H in computational benchmarks, so the choice between them comes down to desktop versus mobile platform needs, not performance expectations.