Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core 3 201E does not win a single test, with the Ultra 7 265H taking every category by margins ranging from 14.4% to 83%.

The closest contest appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Ultra 7 265H scores 2080 against the Core 3 201E's 1780, a 14.4% advantage. This narrow margin suggests that in lightly threaded, short-duration workloads, the two processors are relatively close in per-core capability. The Core 3 201E's boost clock of 4.80 GHz helps it stay competitive, though the Ultra 7 265H still comes out ahead with its 5.30 GHz peak.

Multi-core workloads tell a different story. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the Ultra 7 265H at 19940 versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a 36.7% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap widens to 56.3%, with scores of 12131 and 5297 respectively. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result shows a 57.5% delta, with the Ultra 7 265H at 2989 and the Core 3 201E at 1271.

The largest single delta appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 7 265H scores 335 compared to 57 for the Core 3 201E, an 83% difference. This particular workload is heavily dependent on integer throughput and core count, which explains the extreme spread.

Floating-point math shows a 69.5% delta, with the Ultra 7 265H at 109123 and the Core 3 201E at 33260. Data encryption shows a 65.7% gap (26005 versus 8931), while extended instructions show a 58.8% delta (26805 versus 11035). Data compression results in a 51% difference, with the Ultra 7 265H scoring 334711 against 164160.

The PassMark multi-thread score shows a 56.4% delta (34027 versus 14839), matching the exact same percentage as the random string sorting test (40742 versus 17783) and the Cinebench R20 multi-core test. Physics simulation shows a 54.3% gap (2497 versus 1141). Integer math shows a 48.6% delta (85479 versus 43894).

The single-thread PassMark test shows a 19.7% gap, with 4334 for the Ultra 7 265H and 3482 for the Core 3 201E. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 41.7% delta (307 versus 179), while Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 56.4% delta (1712 versus 747). Interestingly, the single-core deltas vary widely across different test suites, from 14.4% in R23 to 56.4% in R20, suggesting that the two processors respond differently to the specific instruction mixes and scoring methodologies of each benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design families. The Intel Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake architecture using a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture (specifically Arrow Lake-H) on a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. This process difference is substantial and likely contributes to the power and efficiency gap between the two.

Core counts differ dramatically. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 265H does not use simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The Core 3 201E, by contrast, doubles its thread count through SMT. In raw parallel execution capacity, the Ultra 7 265H offers four times the physical cores.

Cache hierarchies scale accordingly. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Ultra 7 265H, combined with double the L3 capacity, provide more data locality headroom.

Base and boost clocks show different design priorities. The Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, while the Ultra 7 265H runs at 2.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The lower base clock on the Ultra 7 265H reflects its 28 W TDP, compared to the Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP. The higher boost clock on the Ultra 7 265H indicates that it can reach higher peak frequencies when thermal and power headroom allow.

Memory support also differs. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both are dual-channel. Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 265H at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E. Both processors support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs in lane count. The Core 3 201E offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 7 265H offers 8. The Core 3 201E uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, while the Ultra 7 265H is soldered to Intel BGA 2049. The integrated graphics also differ, with UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201E and Arc Graphics 140T on the Ultra 7 265H.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Ultra 7 265H wins every head-to-head benchmark, the more useful question is which workloads see the largest or smallest margins. The Core 3 201E is not ahead anywhere, but its smallest deficits indicate areas where it is comparatively less disadvantaged.

The narrowest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core at 14.4%. This suggests that in single-threaded productivity tasks that rely on a single core's peak performance, the Core 3 201E can approach the Ultra 7 265H's output. The 4.80 GHz boost clock on the Core 3 201E helps it maintain respectable single-thread performance despite older architecture and a larger process node.

The next smallest deltas are in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, both at 19.7%. This reinforces the pattern that single-threaded work is where the Core 3 201E is least far behind. Data compression at 51% and integer math at 48.6% are mid-range gaps, suggesting that the Core 3 201E handles scalar integer work reasonably well but loses ground when thread counts scale.

The largest deltas appear in prime number finding (83%), floating-point math (69.5%), and data encryption (65.7%). These workloads benefit heavily from more cores and wider execution resources. The Ultra 7 265H's 16 physical cores and larger caches give it a decisive edge in these parallel, compute-intensive tasks.

The Ultra 7 265H's wins are broad rather than specialized. Its 88th percentile ranking across all CPUs, compared to the Core 3 201E's 73rd percentile, places it clearly higher in the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score of 41621 for the Ultra 7 265H versus 19056 for the Core 3 201E reflects a 118% advantage in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201E win any benchmark against the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H?

A: No. Across all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Ultra 7 265H wins every single comparison.

Q: Which benchmark shows the smallest performance gap?

A: Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.4% delta, with the Ultra 7 265H scoring 2080 versus 1780 for the Core 3 201E.

Q: Which benchmark shows the largest performance gap?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows an 83% delta, with the Ultra 7 265H at 335 and the Core 3 201E at 57.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Ultra 7 265H does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What process nodes are used by each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 265H uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Q: How do the TDP ratings differ?

A: The Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 265H has a 28 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 2.20 GHz for the Ultra 7 265H. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 60 W versus 28 W. Sockets are Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E and Intel BGA 2049 for the Ultra 7 265H. Process nodes are 10 nm for the Core 3 201E and 3 nm for the Ultra 7 265H, with foundries being Intel and TSMC respectively. The die size for the Core 3 201E is 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 7 265H.

Cache configurations differ at every level. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 265H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7 265H. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E and 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 7 265H. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes from the CPU are 16 for the Core 3 201E and 8 for the Ultra 7 265H, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 3 201E and Arc Graphics 140T for the Ultra 7 265H. Market segments are Desktop for the Core 3 201E and Mobile for the Ultra 7 265H. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 7 265H. Both processors have locked multipliers and active production status. Both released on the same date.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every measured benchmark category. Its 16 physical cores, 3 nm process, larger caches, higher boost clock, and greater memory bandwidth combine to produce an average benchmark score of 41621, more than double the Core 3 201E's 19056. Its 88th percentile ranking versus 73rd confirms the overall performance hierarchy.

The Intel Core 3 201E remains a functional desktop processor. Its 60 W TDP and Socket 1700 platform suit traditional desktop builds, and its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more direct expansion connectivity than the Ultra 7 265H's 8 lanes. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock keeps single-thread performance within 14.4% of the Ultra 7 265H in Cinebench R23 single-core, and within 19.7% in PassMark single-thread tests. For workloads that cannot use more than a few threads, the Core 3 201E is not dramatically slower.

The Ultra 7 265H is the stronger processor for any workload that scales with cores, threads, cache capacity, or memory bandwidth. Its 28 W TDP also indicates efficiency advantages, though the data does not include direct power consumption measurements. The Ultra 7 265H's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 251TE at 0.1% higher average score, the Intel Core i7-14650HX at 0.1% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 0.6% lower, placing it in competitive company at the top of its performance tier.

The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-12400F at 0.1% higher, and the Intel Core i5-1335U at 0.4% higher, which places it in the mid-range of CPU performance. The decision between these two processors depends entirely on whether the workload can exploit the Ultra 7 265H's parallel resources. For single-threaded desktop tasks with limited expansion needs, the Core 3 201E is acceptable. For anything requiring sustained multi-core throughput, the Ultra 7 265H is the only choice supported by the recorded benchmarks.