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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core 3 201E. Of the 17 recorded tests, the Core Ultra 7 265K takes all 17. The Core 3 201E does not secure a single win. The magnitude of the lead varies sharply by workload, from a modest 11.9% gap in single-core rendering to a crushing 88.4% deficit in prime-number computation.

The most lopsided result appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 491 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of 88.4%. This test is heavily dependent on raw integer throughput and memory latency, both of which favor the larger, newer processor. Data encryption shows a similar pattern: 48246 versus 8931, a delta of 81.5%. Extended instructions follow at 79.7% (54333 versus 11035), and random string sorting lands at 77.7% (79752 versus 17783). These are not close contests; they reflect fundamentally different execution resources.

Floating-point math delivers a delta of 82.5%, with scores of 189629 and 33260. The Core Ultra 7 265K produces more than five times the floating-point throughput of the Core 3 201E. Integer math is comparatively closer but still lopsided: 143242 versus 43894, a delta of 69.4%. The same 69.4% delta appears in the PassMark physics test, where 3731 beats 1141. Data compression shows a delta of 75.3% (665554 versus 164160), and PassMark multithread shows 58594 versus 14839, a delta of 74.7%.

Cinebench results follow the same hierarchy. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35850 against 12613, a delta of 64.8%. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the gap narrows dramatically to 11.9% (2020 versus 1780). This single-core result is the closest margin anywhere in the comparison, indicating that per-thread architectural efficiency is far more balanced than multi-core throughput. The older Cinebench R15 and R20 tests show consistent deltas of 74.7% for both multicore and singlecore variants: R15 multicore 5020 versus 1271, R15 singlecore 708 versus 179, R20 multicore 20918 versus 5297, R20 singlecore 2953 versus 747.

PassMark single thread records 4928 versus 3482, a delta of 29.3%. This is the second-closest result after Cinebench R23 singlecore, reinforcing that the Core Ultra 7 265K holds a solid but not overwhelming advantage in lightly threaded work. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Core Ultra 7 265K sits at 70879, while the Core 3 201E sits at 19056. In the database percentile rankings, the Core Ultra 7 265K lands in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 201E records zero wins.

Q: What is the closest result between the two?

A: Cinebench R23 singlecore shows the smallest gap at 11.9%, with the Core Ultra 7 265K scoring 2020 against 1780 for the Core 3 201E.

Q: What is the largest performance gap?

A: PassMark find prime numbers shows the largest delta at 88.4%, where the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 491 and the Core 3 201E scores 57.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K has an average benchmark score of 70879, while the Core 3 201E has an average of 19056.

Q: Which processor ranks higher against all CPUs in the database?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265K sits in the 94th percentile, while the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Core 3 201E is competitive?

A: Single-core tests show the smallest deltas. Cinebench R23 singlecore is 11.9% and PassMark single thread is 29.3%. The Core 3 201E remains behind in both, but the margin is far smaller than in multi-core tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design generations and manufacturing approaches. The Intel Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake silicon built on Intel's 10 nm process node, with a die size of 163 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arrow Lake-S architecture, built on a 3 nm process node at TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core Ultra 7 265K belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 family, while the Core 3 201E has no series designation beyond its generation label.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265K provides 20 cores and 20 threads. The thread count parity with core count on the Core Ultra 7 265K indicates a design without simultaneous multithreading, while the Core 3 201E doubles its threads over cores. Cache hierarchies also diverge. 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 Core Ultra 7 265K has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Core Ultra 7 265K supports only DDR5. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E versus 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7 265K. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Core 3 201E offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and the Core Ultra 7 265K offering Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics distinguish the two clearly. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Sockets are not interchangeable: the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 7 265K uses Intel Socket 1851. The Core Ultra 7 265K has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 201E does not.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences in nearly every major field. Core count: 4 versus 20. Threads: 8 versus 20. Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP: 60 W versus 125 W. Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 163 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistor count is only listed for the Core Ultra 7 265K at 17,800 million.

Cache capacities differ across all levels: L1 per core 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 per core 1.25 MB versus 3 MB, and L3 shared 12 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 20, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Socket: 1700 versus 1851. Multiplier unlocked: false versus true. Release dates also differ, with the Core Ultra 7 265K released earlier and the Core 3 201E released later. Launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134. Launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 7 265K is $394.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the dominant processor in every benchmark category recorded. Its 94th percentile ranking versus the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E summarizes the overall standing. The Core Ultra 7 265K delivers 3.7 times the average benchmark score (70879 versus 19056) and leads by at least 11.9% even in the closest single-core test. There is no recorded workload where the Core 3 201E takes the lead.

The Core 3 201E is not without a role. Its 60 W TDP, support for both DDR4 and DDR5, and lower launch MSRP of $134 position it as a lower-power desktop part. The Core Ultra 7 265K, with a 125 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $394, targets a different performance tier entirely. The 20-core configuration, 30 MB of L3 cache, faster boost clock of 5.50 GHz, and unlocked multiplier all point to a processor designed for maximum throughput and enthusiast tuning.

The Core Ultra 7 265K is the correct choice for workloads that scale across cores, such as rendering, compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The data shows deltas of 64.8% to 88.4% in those areas. The Core 3 201E is the correct choice for systems where the lower TDP, DDR4 compatibility, and smaller physical footprint of a 4-core part matter more than peak performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins every recorded benchmark, so the meaningful distinction is not which processor wins, but how large the margin is in each category. The Core Ultra 7 265K shows its smallest advantage in single-core tests. Cinebench R23 singlecore comes in at 11.9%, and PassMark single thread at 29.3%. These results indicate that the Core 3 201E can remain relevant in lightly threaded applications where per-core performance is the limiting factor, even though it still trails.

The Core Ultra 7 265K shows its largest advantages in workloads that stress parallel execution and specialized instruction throughput. PassMark find prime numbers leads at 88.4%, followed by data encryption at 81.5%, floating-point math at 82.5%, and extended instructions at 79.7%. Data compression at 75.3%, random string sorting at 77.7%, and multithread at 74.7% continue the pattern. Cinebench multicore results land at 74.7% for R15 and R20, and 64.8% for R23.

For the Core 3 201E, the "win" is contextual rather than benchmark-based. It uses less power at 60 W TDP, supports DDR4 memory, and fits the Intel Socket 1700 platform. The closest benchmark margins, Cinebench R23 singlecore at 11.9% and PassMark single thread at 29.3%, suggest that single-threaded responsiveness is the least disadvantageous scenario for this part. The Core 3 201E also carries a lower launch MSRP of $134 compared to $394 for the Core Ultra 7 265K, though both remain active production parts in the desktop market segment.