Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 7 265F
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data records a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core 3 201E does not register a single win in any recorded test. The margins are substantial, ranging from roughly 27% to over 86% depending on the workload.
The single-threaded tests show the smallest gaps. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 4750 against 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a 26.7% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core tells a similar story: 5926 versus 1780, which is a 70% delta. The boost clock difference of 5.30 GHz versus 4.80 GHz helps explain part of this gap, but the architectural improvements in the newer part contribute as well.
Multi-threaded workloads amplify the margin dramatically. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 41980 for the Core Ultra 7 265F versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, again a 70% delta. PassMark multi-thread shows 49410 against 14839, also a 70% difference. These consistent 70% deltas across the Cinebench suite indicate a proportional scaling advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.
The largest recorded delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265F scores 416 against just 57, a difference of 86.3%. Floating-point math also shows a very large gap: 173855 versus 33260, a delta of 80.9%. Data encryption shows a 77.4% delta with scores of 39468 and 8931, while extended instructions trail at 71.9% with 39235 versus 11035.
Integer math, data compression, and random string sorting all fall in the 67% to 72% range. The Core Ultra 7 265F records 138078 versus 43894 in integer math (68.2% delta), 507018 versus 164160 in data compression (67.6% delta), and 62439 versus 17783 in random string sorting (71.5% delta). Physics shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 64%, with scores of 3172 and 1141.
The Core Ultra 7 265F also sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. Its average benchmark score of 64438 is more than triple the 19056 average of the Core 3 201E.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core 3 201E is based on Bartlett Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 163 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F uses Arrow Lake-S architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm node, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors.
The core configurations differ fundamentally. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning each core handles two threads. The Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads, indicating a design without simultaneous multithreading. This explains why the thread count equals the core count on the larger part.
Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. 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 Core Ultra 7 265F provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches and the 150% larger L3 pool give the Core Ultra 7 265F a substantial data locality advantage.
Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra 7 265F.
PCIe lanes differ: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 265F provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Core 3 201E includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: LGA 1700 for the Core 3 201E and LGA 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 265F.
Where Each One Wins
The recorded data shows no benchmark category where the Intel Core 3 201E outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F. Every single test in the database, from single-threaded integer workloads to multi-threaded rendering, favors the Core Ultra 7 265F.
The Core 3 201E does have attributes that may matter in specific contexts. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 7 265F does not. It also supports DDR4, potentially allowing reuse of existing memory modules in a system build. Its 60 W TDP is lower than the 65 W TDP of the Core Ultra 7 265F, and its smaller die and older process may correlate with different thermal characteristics, though the database records no direct thermal measurements.
The Core Ultra 7 265F dominates in every performance dimension measured. Its smallest relative advantage is 26.7% in single-threaded PassMark tests. In multi-threaded and math-heavy workloads, the advantage ranges from 64% to 86.3%. The 20-core configuration with 30 MB of L3 cache provides a structural advantage in parallel workloads that the 4-core, 12 MB L3 configuration of the Core 3 201E cannot offset.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads; the Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz and 2.40 GHz respectively, while boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.30 GHz. TDP is 60 W for the Core 3 201E and 65 W for the Core Ultra 7 265F.
Sockets differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E versus Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. The process nodes are 10 nm (Intel) versus 3 nm (TSMC). Die sizes are 163 mm² versus 243 mm². The Core Ultra 7 265F lists 17,800 million transistors; the Core 3 201E does not record a transistor count.
Cache specifications differ per core and in total. L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 12 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 3 201E and absent on the Core Ultra 7 265F. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus N/A.
Part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 201E and SRQCV for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Release dates are 2025-01-12 and 2025-01-06 respectively. Launch MSRP is $134 for the Core 3 201E and $379 for the Core Ultra 7 265F. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.
Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265F scores 41980, while the Core 3 201E scores 12613. The delta is 70% in favor of the Core Ultra 7 265F.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265F does not.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics.
Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Core Ultra 7 265F has an average benchmark score of 64438, while the Core 3 201E has an average of 19056. The Core Ultra 7 265F sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E.
The Verdict
The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F wins every recorded test, with deltas ranging from 26.7% to 86.3%. Its 20-core, 20-thread configuration, 30 MB of L3 cache, and 5.30 GHz boost clock deliver performance that the 4-core, 8-thread Core 3 201E cannot approach.
The Core 3 201E retains relevance only through its ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and lower 60 W TDP. Systems requiring error-correcting memory or legacy DDR4 modules would have no alternative in this comparison. The launch MSRP of $134 versus $379 also places the two parts in different market tiers, though the performance gap is proportionally larger than the price gap in every measured workload.
For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in rendering, encryption, sorting, or math-heavy tasks, the database records no scenario where the Core 3 201E is preferable. The Core Ultra 7 265F also offers a higher boost clock, more PCIe lanes, and a newer 3 nm process from TSMC. The only considerations favoring the Core 3 201E are ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, and integrated graphics. Those three factors define its entire case.