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

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core 3 201E compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF in overall performance?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF records an average benchmark score of 71910, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201E records an average score of 19056, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The Core Ultra 7 leads in every head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Core 3 relies on hyper-threading to reach its thread count, while the Core Ultra 7 has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF reaches a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 7 also has a higher base clock at 3.90 GHz compared to 3.60 GHz.

Q: How large is the difference in cache memory?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265KF has 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, with 192 KB of L1 per core. The Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 80 KB of L1 per core.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 7 has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12 and has the part number SRVTR. The Core Ultra 7 265KF was released on 2024-10-23 and has the part number SRQCU.

The Verdict

The data separates these two processors into entirely different performance classes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with no wins recorded for the Core 3 201E. The scale of the defeat is consistent: in multi-core Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 7 leads by roughly 74.6% in every case, indicating a structural advantage in core count and throughput rather than a narrow edge.

The Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process. Its 12613 score in Cinebench R23 multi-core puts it in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, which is respectable for a low-core-count chip. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 average score (0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039 (0.1% delta). This places the Core 3 in the same performance neighborhood as mid-range processors from previous generations.

The Core Ultra 7 265KF sits at the 94th percentile with an average score of 71910. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at 71797 (0.2% delta) and Intel Xeon parts ranging from 71370 to 72396. This is a high-end desktop processor that competes with workstation-class silicon.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Core 3 201E for systems where the 60 W TDP, DDR4 compatibility, integrated UHD Graphics 730, and ECC memory support matter more than raw compute. Pick the Core Ultra 7 265KF for any workload where multi-core performance dominates, as it delivers roughly 4x the multi-threaded throughput. The Core 3 wins on platform flexibility and power envelope; the Core Ultra 7 wins on every performance metric recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 7 265KF dominates every benchmark in the head-to-head set. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Core Ultra 7 scores 4928 against 3482 for the Core 3, a delta of 29.3%. This confirms that even in lightly threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 7's architecture delivers substantially higher per-core performance.

The largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 7 scores 486 against 57, a delta of 88.3%. This workload is highly sensitive to integer throughput and cache behavior, and the Core Ultra 7's 20 cores and 30 MB of L3 cache produce an overwhelming advantage.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 scores 49736 versus 12613 for the Core 3, a delta of 74.6%. The R23 single-core test shows 7021 versus 1780, also a 74.6% delta. The consistency of these percentages across Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23 all show 74.6% to 74.7% deltas) suggests that the performance gap scales uniformly with core count and clock speed.

PassMark data compression shows the Core Ultra 7 at 666589 versus 164160, a 75.4% delta. Data encryption shows 48198 versus 8931, an 81.5% delta. Extended instructions show 54513 versus 11035, a 79.8% delta. Floating point math shows 189431 versus 33260, an 82.4% delta. Integer math shows 143351 versus 43894, a 69.4% delta. Multithread shows 58518 versus 14839, a 74.6% delta. Physics shows 3633 versus 1141, a 68.6% delta. Random string sorting shows 79735 versus 17783, a 77.7% delta.

The Core 3 201E has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its best relative showing is in PassMark single-thread, where the delta narrows to 29.3%, and PassMark physics where the delta is 68.6%. These are still decisive losses, but they indicate that the Core 3 is comparatively less disadvantaged in workloads that do not scale with core count.

Specification Differences

The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 7 265KF uses Intel Socket 1851. These sockets are not interchangeable, so platform choice is determined at the motherboard level.

Core and thread counts differ significantly: 4 cores and 8 threads for the Core 3 versus 20 cores and 20 threads for the Core Ultra 7. The Core 3 has hyper-threading enabled, giving it 2 threads per core; the Core Ultra 7 does not use hyper-threading.

Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 and 3.90 GHz for the Core Ultra 7. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.50 GHz respectively. The Core Ultra 7 has both a higher floor and a higher ceiling.

TDP differs substantially: 60 W for the Core 3 versus 125 W for the Core Ultra 7. This affects cooling requirements and power delivery design. The Core 3 can be cooled by simpler solutions given its lower thermal envelope.

Memory support differs: the Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 supports DDR5 only. Both are dual-channel, but memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 and 102.4 GB/s for the Core Ultra 7.

ECC memory is supported by the Core 3 but not by the Core Ultra 7. This makes the Core 3 relevant for certain reliability-focused builds.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 3 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 7 provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). A discrete GPU is mandatory for the Core Ultra 7.

The Core 3 has a locked multiplier; the Core Ultra 7 has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking.

The launch MSRP of the Core 3 201E is $134. The launch MSRP of the Core Ultra 7 265KF is $379.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E is codenamed Bartlett Lake and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The die size is 163 mm².

The Core Ultra 7 265KF is codenamed Arrow Lake-S and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It uses the Arrow Lake architecture and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 243 mm², and the transistor count is 17,800 million.

The process node difference (10 nm versus 3 nm) explains part of the performance gap. The Core Ultra 7 packs 20 cores into a 243 mm² die using a more advanced process, while the Core 3 fits 4 cores into a 163 mm² die on an older node.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 3 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 7 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache alone is 2.5x larger on the Core Ultra 7.

The Core 3 uses a traditional core design with hyper-threading. The Core Ultra 7 uses 20 physical cores without hyper-threading, which in the recorded data still delivers far higher multi-threaded scores.

The manufacturing partnership differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 7. This is a notable architectural distinction, as the two chips come from different foundries and process technologies.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265KF wins in every recorded benchmark category. It is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 49736 versus 12613. It also dominates data compression (666589 versus 164160), encryption (48198 versus 8931), and floating point math (189431 versus 33260). Any workload that can use more than 4 cores will favor the Core Ultra 7 by a wide margin.

The Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark, but it has platform advantages that may matter in specific builds. It supports DDR4 memory, which can reduce system cost and allow reuse of existing memory modules. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, so a discrete GPU is not required for basic display output. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 7 does not. Its 60 W TDP is less than half that of the Core Ultra 7, which simplifies cooling and power delivery. Its launch MSRP of $134 is significantly lower than the Core Ultra 7's launch MSRP of $379.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 7 still leads, but the margin narrows to 29.3% in PassMark single-thread. This is the closest recorded contest between the two chips. Applications that are purely single-threaded will still run faster on the Core Ultra 7, but the Core 3 is comparatively less disadvantaged here than in multi-threaded tests.

The data supports a simple division: the Core Ultra 7 265KF for maximum performance across all threaded workloads, and the Core 3 201E for builds prioritizing low power, ECC support, integrated graphics, or DDR4 compatibility. The Core 3's 73rd percentile standing shows it is a capable processor in its own right, but it operates in a different performance tier from the 94th-percentile Core Ultra 7.