Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V, which takes 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 3 201E manages only 2 wins, both in specific workloads. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the Core Ultra 7 256V records 21112 against 19056 for the Core 3 201E, a difference of roughly 10.8%.

The largest victory for the Core Ultra 7 256V appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 192 against 57 for the Core 3 201E. This is a 70.3% advantage, the most lopsided result in the entire comparison. Floating point math also shows a major gap, with the Core Ultra 7 256V at 58576 versus 33260, a 43.2% lead. Data encryption follows closely: 13998 against 8931, a 36.2% margin in favor of the Core Ultra 7 256V. Extended instructions show a 29.5% gap (15643 versus 11035), and physics simulation delivers a 28.5% advantage (1595 versus 1141). PassMark multithread shows a 24% lead (19530 versus 14839), and random string sorting comes in at 20.9% ahead (22481 versus 17783).

The Cinebench R15 results heavily favor the Core Ultra 7 256V as well. In R15 multicore, it scores 1583.5 against 1271, a 19.7% margin. The single-core R15 test shows an even larger gap: 285.5 versus 179, a 37.3% difference. Cinebench R20 also goes to the Core Ultra 7 256V, with multicore at 6958 versus 5297 (23.9% ahead) and single-core at 982 versus 747 (also 23.9% ahead). The R23 single-core test is closer, with the Core Ultra 7 256V scoring 1877.5 against 1780, a 5.2% margin. PassMark single-thread results show a 13.6% lead for the Core Ultra 7 256V at 4029 versus 3482.

The Core 3 201E claims its first win in Cinebench R23 multicore. Here it scores 12613 against 10399 for the Core Ultra 7 256V, a substantial 21.3% advantage. This is the only multi-core test where the Core 3 201E comes out ahead. The second win for the Core 3 201E is in PassMark integer math, but by a razor-thin margin: 43894 versus 43358, just 1.2% ahead. Data compression also favors the Core Ultra 7 256V, with 184985 against 164160, an 11.3% lead.

Looking at the broader score distribution, the Core Ultra 7 256V holds advantages in every test category except the two mentioned. The percentile rankings confirm this: the Core Ultra 7 256V sits at the 75th percentile against all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for each part further contextualize the data. The Core 3 201E lands within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core i5-12400F, Intel Core i5-1335U, and AMD EPYC 7773X. The Core Ultra 7 256V sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, Intel Core i3-1220P, and Intel Core Ultra 7 155U.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 256V dominates in single-threaded and most multi-threaded scenarios. Its single-core wins span every Cinebench generation tested: R15 (285.5 versus 179), R20 (982 versus 747), and R23 (1877.5 versus 1780). The PassMark single-thread score reinforces this, showing 4029 against 3482. For workloads that rely on encryption, the Core Ultra 7 256V is clearly stronger, with a 36.2% margin in data encryption and a 29.5% edge in extended instructions. Floating-point math, physics simulation, multithread throughput, data compression, and random string sorting all go to the Core Ultra 7 256V by margins ranging from 11.3% to 43.2%. Prime number finding, a test that stresses integer and branch-heavy operations, is decisively in favor of the Core Ultra 7 256V at 192 versus 57.

The Core 3 201E wins in Cinebench R23 multicore, the most modern multi-core render test in the comparison. Its score of 12613 exceeds the Core Ultra 7 256V by 21.3%, indicating that sustained multi-core rendering workloads favor the desktop part. The second win comes in PassMark integer math, where 43894 barely edges out 43358. This 1.2% margin is the closest result in the entire benchmark set. For integer-heavy general processing tasks, the two parts are effectively equivalent, with the Core 3 201E holding a negligible advantage.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Core Ultra 7 256V is the choice for single-thread performance, encryption, floating-point math, and mixed multithreaded workloads. The Core 3 201E is preferable for long-duration multi-core render jobs, as shown by the Cinebench R23 result, and for integer math where it matches the Core Ultra 7 256V with a slight edge. The data compression result (184985 versus 164160) shows the Core Ultra 7 256V handling compression tasks 11.3% faster, so archival or compression-heavy workflows favor the mobile part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design lineages. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, codename Lunar Lake, fabricated on a 3 nm node at TSMC. This process node difference likely contributes to the power and efficiency characteristics, though the benchmark data does not directly measure power consumption.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, but twice the physical core count. The cache hierarchy reflects this difference. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The Core Ultra 7 256V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core. Both share 12 MB of L3 cache.

The Core 3 201E uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform and targets the desktop market segment. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses Intel BGA 2833 and is a mobile part. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 256V does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 256V provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Core 3 201E featuring UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 7 256V featuring Arc 140V.

The memory support shows a notable split. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 256V also uses dual-channel memory, but the specific memory types are listed as unknown, dependent on the motherboard, and its memory bandwidth is not recorded. The production status for both is Active, though the release dates differ: the Core 3 201E released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 7 256V released on 2024-09-23.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the fields where the two processors differ according to the recorded data.

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | Unknown, depends on motherboard |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 140V |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

The Core 3 201E has double the core count of the Core Ultra 7 256V but the same thread count, since the latter does not use hyper-threading. The base clock is substantially higher on the Core 3 201E (3.60 GHz versus 2.20 GHz), while the boost clocks match at 4.80 GHz. The TDP differs dramatically: 60 W for the Core 3 201E versus 17 W for the Core Ultra 7 256V, reflecting the desktop-versus-mobile positioning. The L1 and L2 caches per core are larger on the Core Ultra 7 256V, while both share 12 MB of L3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V records an average benchmark score of 21112, compared to 19056 for the Intel Core 3 201E.

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

A: The Core Ultra 7 256V scores 1877.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 5.2% ahead of the Core 3 201E's score of 1780.

Q: In which multi-core test does the Intel Core 3 201E outperform the Core Ultra 7 256V?

A: The Core 3 201E wins Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 12613, which is 21.3% higher than the Core Ultra 7 256V's 10399.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W, while the Core Ultra 7 256V has a TDP of 17 W.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 256V does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the Core Ultra 7 256V is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC.