Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 3 201E. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 5 338H is 33989, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E averages 19056 and sits in the 73rd percentile. That gap in percentile ranking reflects a consistent, substantial performance advantage across every workload category.

The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 304 against the Core 3 201E's 57, a delta of 81.2%. This is a workload that scales heavily with core count and memory bandwidth, and the result indicates a massive throughput advantage. Floating point math shows a similar story: 84067 versus 33260, a 60.4% difference. Data encryption is another dominant win, with 21367 versus 8931, a 58.2% margin.

The Cinebench suite confirms the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 338H scores 2504 versus 1271, a 49.2% lead. R20 multicore shows 10213 versus 5297, a 48.1% gap. R23 multicore narrows somewhat to 16331 versus 12613, a 22.8% difference, but the Ultra 5 338H still holds a decisive edge. Single-core results are closer but still favor the Ultra 5 338H: R15 single-core shows 305 versus 179 (41.3% ahead), R20 single-core shows 1441 versus 747 (48.2% ahead), and R23 single-core shows 2044 versus 1780 (12.9% ahead).

PassMark's multithread test shows 28717 versus 14839, a 48.3% lead. Physics simulation follows at 2697 versus 1141, a 57.7% margin. Integer math delivers 64934 versus 43894, a 32.4% advantage. Random string sorting shows 34082 versus 17783, a 47.8% gap. Extended instructions show 23906 versus 11035, a 53.8% lead. Data compression shows 276539 versus 164160, a 40.6% advantage. Single-thread performance, measured by PassMark at 4180 versus 3482, gives the Ultra 5 338H a 16.7% lead.

The record shows no test where the Core 3 201E wins. The smallest margin across all benchmarks is the 12.9% gap in Cinebench R23 single-core, which indicates that even in lightly threaded scenarios, the Ultra 5 338H maintains a meaningful advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has an average benchmark score of 33989, compared to 19056 for the Intel Core 3 201E.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 5 338H scores 16331, which is 22.8% higher than the Core 3 201E's 12613.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 338H scores 304 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, an 81.2% difference.

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Ultra 5 338H leads in all single-thread tests, with PassMark single-thread scores of 4180 versus 3482, a 16.7% advantage.

Q: Do the CPUs differ in their memory support?

A: Yes. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X. The memory bandwidth also differs: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E versus 136.5 GB/s for the Ultra 5 338H.

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

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and process nodes. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm². The Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture and codename, built on a 3 nm process. This node difference is substantial: the 3 nm process allows for significantly higher transistor density and efficiency compared to 10 nm.

Core topology differs notably. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads from 4 physical cores. The Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning it does not rely on multithreading; each core delivers one thread. This is a fundamental architectural distinction, with the Ultra 5 338H offering three times the physical core count.

Cache hierarchies are also different. 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 Ultra 5 338H provides 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 and bigger L3 pool on the Ultra 5 338H support its higher core count and bandwidth demands.

Memory architecture differences are significant. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X memory with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth, a 78% increase in theoretical memory throughput. The Ultra 5 338H also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 201E does not.

PCIe lane allocation differs as well. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 338H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Core 3 201E better suited for desktop configurations with discrete GPUs or multiple expansion cards, while the Ultra 5 338H targets mobile platforms with more limited expansion.

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 338H uses Arc B370. The market segments confirm the intended use: the Core 3 201E is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 338H is a mobile part on Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the specification fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | Core 3 201E | Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 5 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die size | 163 mm² | Not specified |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 12 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B370 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not specified |

| Part number | SRVTR | SA4REQ9EW |

The two CPUs share several characteristics: both are manufactured by Intel, both use Intel as the foundry, both support dual-channel memory, both have locked multipliers, and both are listed as active in production.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H as the clear performance leader. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with margins ranging from 12.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 81.2% in PassMark find prime numbers. Its average benchmark score of 33989 is roughly 78% higher than the Core 3 201E's 19056, and its 84th percentile ranking versus the 73rd percentile confirms the separation.

The Ultra 5 338H achieves this with a much lower TDP of 25 W compared to 60 W for the Core 3 201E, which indicates substantially better performance-per-watt. This efficiency comes from the 3 nm process node, the Panther Lake architecture, and the high-bandwidth LPDDR5X memory support.

The Core 3 201E does have structural advantages that matter for specific platforms. It uses the Intel Socket 1700, which is a standard desktop socket, and provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which enables full-bandwidth discrete GPU connectivity. It also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ultra 5 338H, and offers DDR4 compatibility for systems with older memory.

The launch MSRP of the Core 3 201E is $134, but the comparison should focus on capability and platform fit rather than cost. For raw compute throughput, the Ultra 5 338H dominates across every measured workload. For desktop expansion and ECC memory support, the Core 3 201E provides features the mobile part lacks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every performance category recorded. Its largest advantages come in highly parallel workloads: find prime numbers (81.2% ahead), floating point math (60.4% ahead), and data encryption (58.2% ahead). These results indicate strong multicore scaling and efficient memory utilization. The 12-core, 12-thread configuration with 18 MB of L3 cache and 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth supports heavy computational tasks.

The Ultra 5 338H also excels in content creation and rendering tasks. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore scores all show leads between 22.8% and 49.2%. Physics simulation shows a 57.7% advantage, and multithread workloads show 48.3% higher scores. The PassMark data compression test shows a 40.6% lead, and integer math shows 32.4% ahead. These results cover typical workstation and productivity scenarios.

Single-thread performance also favors the Ultra 5 338H, though by smaller margins. The 16.7% lead in PassMark single-thread, 12.9% in R23 single-core, and 48.2% in R20 single-core indicate that even lightly threaded applications run faster on the mobile part. The higher boost clock of the Core 3 201E (4.80 GHz versus 4.70 GHz) does not compensate for the architectural efficiency of the 3 nm Panther Lake design.

The Intel Core 3 201E has no benchmark wins. Its advantages are platform-based rather than performance-based. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it suitable for desktop builds with discrete graphics, and the ECC memory support serves reliability-focused applications. The Intel Socket 1700 compatibility allows installation in existing desktop motherboards. The DDR4 and DDR5 memory support gives flexibility for different system configurations.

In summary, the data indicates that for any compute-intensive workload, the Ultra 5 338H is the superior processor. The Core 3 201E remains relevant only for desktop-specific requirements involving expansion slots, ECC memory, or socket compatibility.