Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 7 265
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265
The Verdict
The benchmark data separates these two desktop processors cleanly. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins every single recorded benchmark, 17 out of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E does not take a single victory. The Core Ultra 7 265 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E lands in the 73rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 265 is 64,640, compared to 19,056 for the Core 3 201E, a gap of roughly 3.4 times. The data indicates the Ultra 7 265 is for workloads that demand maximum throughput, while the Core 3 201E serves lighter desktop tasks where its lower core count and smaller cache footprint are acceptable compromises.
Where Each One Wins
The Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark category. Its only comparative strengths appear indirectly: the lower TDP of 60 watts versus 65 watts, the smaller die size of 163 mm² versus 243 mm², and support for DDR4 memory alongside DDR5. These traits point toward simpler builds, lower power draw, and legacy memory compatibility. The Ultra 7 265, by contrast, wins across every compute category in the database. The largest margins appear in multi-core rendering, encryption, and prime number finding, while the smallest margin is in single-threaded PassMark tests.
For users who prioritize raw multi-threaded performance, the Ultra 7 265 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 42,216 versus 12,613 for the Core 3 201E, a 70.1% advantage. For single-thread responsiveness, the same processor leads with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5,960 versus 1,780, also a 70.1% margin. The Core 3 201E remains viable for basic desktop use, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it outperforms the Ultra 7 265.
Architecture Differences
The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Ultra 7 265 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename on a 3 nm process from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this gap: the Ultra 7 265 contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 3 201E has no listed transistor count but occupies a smaller 163 mm² die. The Core 3 201E packs 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 7 265 offers 20 cores and 20 threads, meaning the latter has no hyper-threading but far more physical cores.
Cache hierarchies 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. The Ultra 7 265 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The memory controller on the Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ultra 7 265 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Ultra 7 265.
The two processors use different sockets: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E and Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7 265. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 3 201E offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) on the Ultra 7 265. Integrated graphics vary as well: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201E versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU on the Ultra 7 265. The release dates are close, with the Ultra 7 265 launching on 2025-01-06 and the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.
Q: What is the boost clock difference?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz.
Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?
A: Only the Intel Core 3 201E supports DDR4 alongside DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 supports DDR5 exclusively.
Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.
Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread PassMark score?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265 scores 4,689 in the PassMark single-thread test, versus 3,482 for the Core 3 201E, a 25.7% lead.
Q: What is the TDP for each processor?
A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, and the Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 watts.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the Ultra 7 265 scoring 4,255 against 1,271 for the Core 3 201E, a 70.1% deficit for the smaller chip. The R15 single-core test follows a similar pattern: 600 versus 179, again a 70.2% gap. In Cinebench R20, the margins tighten considerably. The multi-core scores are 6,268 for the Ultra 7 265 and 5,297 for the Core 3 201E, a 15.5% difference. Single-core R20 shows 884 versus 747, also 15.5%. The R23 multi-core result returns to the larger gap: 42,216 versus 12,613, a 70.1% difference, while R23 single-core shows 5,960 versus 1,780, again 70.1%.
PassMark tests reveal the most extreme deltas. Data compression favors the Ultra 7 265 at 522,983 versus 164,160, a 68.6% gap. Data encryption shows 40,456 versus 8,931, a 77.9% difference. Extended instructions score 41,478 versus 11,035, a 73.4% margin. Prime number finding produces the largest relative gap: 418 versus 57, an 86.4% deficit for the Core 3 201E. Floating point math shows 172,776 versus 33,260, an 80.7% gap. Integer math results in 134,773 versus 43,894, a 67.4% difference. The multi-thread PassMark test gives 49,682 versus 14,839, a 70.1% gap. Physics scores 2,923 versus 1,141, a 61% difference. Random string sorting shows 63,833 versus 17,783, a 72.1% gap. The single-thread PassMark tests (both listed under different names but identical scores) show 4,689 versus 3,482, a 25.7% difference, the smallest margin in the entire comparison.
The data confirms the Ultra 7 265 dominates in every recorded workload. The largest wins come in prime number finding, floating point math, and data encryption, while the smallest advantages are in single-threaded performance. The Core 3 201E never closes the gap beyond 15.5% in any test, and that only occurs in the Cinebench R20 suite.
Specification Differences
The Core 3 201E and Core Ultra 7 265 differ across nearly every specification field. Core count stands at 4 versus 20, threads at 8 versus 20. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, while boost clocks are 4.80 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP is 60 watts versus 65 watts. The process node is 10 nm versus 3 nm, with foundries Intel versus TSMC. The die size is 163 mm² versus 243 mm², and the Ultra 7 265 lists 17,800 million transistors while the Core 3 201E has no listed count.
Cache sizes diverge: L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 per core is 1.25 MB versus 3 MB, and L3 is 12 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support differs as DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only, with bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is present on the Core 3 201E but absent on the Ultra 7 265. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and for the Ultra 7 265 it is $394. Both processors are unlocked multipliers, and both are active production parts. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake-S.