Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

The data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Core 3 201E. The Core 3 201E manages only a single win, but that win is substantial and reveals a specific performance niche. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 255H is 33,537, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at 19,056 and the 73rd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the Intel Core 3 201E defeats the Core Ultra 7 255H by a wide margin. The Core 3 201E scores 12,613, which is 36.5% higher than the Core Ultra 7 255H’s 9,240. This is the only benchmark win for the Core 3 201E, and it suggests a sustained multi-core load scenario where the desktop chip’s power delivery and thermal headroom overcome its lower core count.

However, the Core Ultra 7 255H dominates across the rest of the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1,515 versus 1,271, a 16.1% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 17% (6,381 versus 5,297). Single-core results also favor the Core Ultra 7 255H: it leads by 28.7% in Cinebench R15 (251 versus 179), by 17% in Cinebench R20 (900 versus 747), and by 3.4% in Cinebench R23 (1,843 versus 1,780). The single-core lead in R23 is modest, but the R15 and R20 gaps are considerable.

The PassMark suite reinforces the Core Ultra 7 255H’s dominance, with especially large margins in compute-heavy workloads. The biggest deltas appear in prime number finding (81.2% faster, scoring 303 versus 57) and floating point math (66.3% faster, scoring 98,796 versus 33,260). Data encryption shows a 61.8% advantage (23,395 versus 8,931), and extended instructions are 53.5% faster (23,755 versus 11,035). The Core Ultra 7 255H also leads by 45.1% in data compression (298,850 versus 164,160) and by 43.7% in integer math (77,975 versus 43,894).

In overall multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 7 255H posts a PassMark multi-thread score of 30,703, which is 51.7% higher than the Core 3 201E’s 14,839. Physics simulation follows a similar pattern, with the Core Ultra 7 255H ahead by 49.4% (2,254 versus 1,141). Random string sorting shows a 50.7% margin (36,058 versus 17,783). Single-thread performance in PassMark favors the Core Ultra 7 255H by 19.3%, with scores of 4,317 and 3,482. Across the full PassMark set, the Core Ultra 7 255H is consistently ahead by margins ranging from roughly 19% to over 80%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market targets. The Intel Core 3 201E is a desktop part built on Intel’s 10 nm process node and uses the Bartlett Lake codename. It fits the Intel Socket 1700 platform and has a power envelope of 60 watts TDP. The Core Ultra 7 255H is a mobile processor in the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC with the Arrow Lake-H codename. It uses the Intel BGA 2049 socket and carries a much lower 28 watt TDP.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 255H has no hyper-threading, as its thread count equals its core count, whereas the Core 3 201E doubles its threads through simultaneous multi-threading. Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Core 3 201E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 255H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache, doubling the L3 pool.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe lanes favor the mobile chip, with the Core Ultra 7 255H providing Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

The process node difference is notable. The 3 nm TSMC process for the Core Ultra 7 255H likely contributes to its efficiency and higher transistor density, although transistor counts are not recorded. The die size for the Core 3 201E is recorded at 163 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core Ultra 7 255H. The Core 3 201E’s boost clock is 4.80 GHz, which is lower than the Core Ultra 7 255H’s 5.10 GHz boost, but the Core 3 201E has a much higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in nearly every measured workload category, making it the stronger overall performer. Its advantages are largest in parallel compute tasks such as prime number finding, floating point math, and extended instruction sets. For encryption, compression, and integer math, the Core Ultra 7 255H also holds commanding leads. The data indicates that the Core Ultra 7 255H is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity, content creation, and any workload that can utilize its 16 cores.

The Intel Core 3 201E’s sole win in Cinebench R23 multi-core is an outlier that deserves attention. Despite having only 4 cores and 8 threads, it delivers a 36.5% higher score in that specific test. This suggests that the Core 3 201E can sustain a heavy all-core load better than the mobile chip, likely due to its higher base clock and the desktop platform’s ability to dissipate heat. For users running long-duration rendering or encoding tasks that resemble the Cinebench R23 workload, the Core 3 201E may offer a performance advantage that its other benchmark scores do not reflect.

Single-core performance is closer than the core-count disparity might suggest. The Core Ultra 7 255H leads in all single-core tests, but the margin narrows from 28.7% in Cinebench R15 to just 3.4% in Cinebench R23. This indicates that for lightly threaded tasks, the two processors are more comparable, though the Core Ultra 7 255H still holds the edge.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear separation between the two parts. The Core 3 201E uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 255H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.10 GHz, favoring the Core Ultra 7 255H at peak speed. The TDP is 60 watts for the desktop chip and 28 watts for the mobile chip.

The sockets differ completely: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E and Intel BGA 2049 for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Process nodes are 10 nm (Intel) and 3 nm (TSMC). Cache sizes differ across all levels, with the Core Ultra 7 255H offering more L1, L2, and L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Graphics 140T. The market segments are Desktop and Mobile, respectively. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Both are listed as Active production status with the same release date.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has an average benchmark score of 33,537, while the Intel Core 3 201E has an average score of 19,056.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: In which test does the Intel Core 3 201E outperform the Core Ultra 7 255H?

A: The Core 3 201E wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, scoring 12,613 versus 9,240, a 36.5% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Core 3 201E has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is higher than the Core 3 201E’s 4.80 GHz boost clock.

The Verdict

The benchmark data identifies the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H as the superior processor for almost all workloads. Its 16 cores and 16 threads deliver massive multi-threaded performance advantages, with margins exceeding 50% in PassMark multi-thread and exceeding 60% in floating point math. The higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, larger 24 MB L3 cache, and 5.10 GHz boost clock support its dominance in both single-thread and multi-thread tasks. The 83rd percentile ranking versus the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E confirms the overall performance gap.

The Intel Core 3 201E does present a compelling case for one specific scenario: sustained multi-core rendering or encoding that mirrors Cinebench R23. Its 36.5% win in that test, combined with a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and a desktop socket design, indicates it can maintain a heavy all-core load effectively. For users prioritizing that exact workload type, the Core 3 201E is the better choice. For all other recorded benchmarks, the Core Ultra 7 255H is the definitive winner, making it the recommended processor for general purpose, productivity, and compute-intensive applications.