Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 7 265T
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265T
The Verdict
The benchmark data positions the Intel Core Ultra 7 265T as the dominant performer in this comparison, winning all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 3 201E is a four-core, eight-thread desktop processor with a 60 W TDP, while the Ultra 7 265T is a twenty-core, twenty-thread chip with a 35 W TDP. The average benchmark score for the Ultra 7 265T is 47,697, which places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056, landing in the 73rd percentile.
The data suggests the Ultra 7 265T is the clear choice for workloads that exploit multicore parallelism, such as rendering, physics simulation, and data compression. Its single-thread advantage is smaller but still consistent, with a 19.7% lead in PassMark single-thread tests. The Core 3 201E, by contrast, offers a lower entry point in terms of platform cost, but its performance ceiling is substantially lower across every measured metric.
For a buyer constrained to the Intel Socket 1700 platform, the Core 3 201E is the only option here, but the Ultra 7 265T requires Socket 1851. The 60 W TDP of the Core 3 201E versus the 35 W TDP of the Ultra 7 265T is notable: the higher-core-count chip draws less power according to the specification sheet, which is an unusual inversion that the data does not explain but the benchmark results do support.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different foundries. The Core 3 201E is based on Bartlett Lake, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the Ultra 7 265T uses Arrow Lake-S, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count for the Ultra 7 265T is listed as 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm². The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², with no transistor count recorded in the database.
Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it relies on Hyper-Threading to reach eight threads. The Ultra 7 265T provides 20 cores and 20 threads, with no multithreading per core. Cache hierarchies also differ: 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 265T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3.
Memory support is another split. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265T supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 7 265T lists a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Ultra 7 265T. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Core 3 201E has 16 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 7 265T has 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).
Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 265T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The production status for both is Active, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Ultra 7 265T wins every recorded head-to-head test, but the margin varies by workload. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ultra 7 265T scores 31,558 versus 12,613 for the Core 3 201E, a 60% delta. Single-core R23 shows 4,455 versus 1,780, also a 60% delta. The pattern repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20: multicore deltas of 60% and 60.1%, single-core deltas of 60% and 60.1%.
The largest relative gap appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 7 265T scores 322 versus 57, a delta of 82.3%. Floating point math shows a 74.4% delta, with 129,817 versus 33,260. Data encryption shows a 69.9% delta, with 29,687 versus 8,931. Extended instructions follow at 61.4% delta, with 28,609 versus 11,035.
The smallest gap is in single-thread tests. PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show 4,338 versus 3,482, a 19.7% delta. This indicates that while the Ultra 7 265T has a strong per-core advantage, the Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz boost clock helps keep the single-thread deficit relatively contained when compared to the multicore gaps.
Data compression shows a 55.7% delta, with 370,158 versus 164,160. Integer math shows a 58.2% delta, with 104,943 versus 43,894. Multithread PassMark shows a 60% delta, with 37,084 versus 14,839. Random string sorting shows a 59.9% delta, with 44,400 versus 17,783. Physics shows a 52.3% delta, with 2,391 versus 1,141.
Specification Differences
The recorded specification fields that differ between the two processors are substantial. Core count: 4 versus 20. Thread count: 8 versus 20. Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. TDP: 60 W versus 35 W. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel Socket 1851. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-S. Generation: Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) versus Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake). Process node: 10 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Die size: 163 mm² versus 243 mm². Transistors: not recorded versus 17,800 million.
Cache per core differs: L1 is 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 is 1.25 MB versus 3 MB. L3 shared is 12 MB versus 30 MB. Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory: true versus false. PCIe lanes: 16 versus 20 (both Gen 5, CPU only). Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Launch MSRP: the Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, and the Ultra 7 265T has a launch MSRP of $384. Release dates are close, with the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12 and the Ultra 7 265T on 2025-01-06. Part numbers also differ: SRVTR versus SRQCS.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265T has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.
Q: Does the Core 3 201E support ECC memory?
A: Yes, the Core 3 201E lists ECC memory support as true. The Ultra 7 265T lists ECC memory support as false.
Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?
A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W, while the Ultra 7 265T has a TDP of 35 W, despite having five times the cores.
Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?
A: The Ultra 7 265T has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E.
Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Ultra 7 265T?
A: The Ultra 7 265T has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.
Q: Do both processors use the same memory types?
A: No. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 265T supports only DDR5.
Where Each One Wins
The data gives the Ultra 7 265T a clean sweep across all 17 benchmark categories. The largest wins are in prime number finding (82.3% delta), floating point math (74.4% delta), and data encryption (69.9% delta). These are heavily parallel workloads, and the 20-core configuration with 30 MB of L3 cache provides a clear advantage. The smallest win is in single-thread performance at 19.7% delta, where the Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz boost clock narrows the gap but does not close it.
The Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark in the database. Its only practical advantage lies in platform-level characteristics: it uses the Intel Socket 1700, supports DDR4 memory, and has ECC memory support. For users already on a Socket 1700 motherboard with DDR4 modules, the Core 3 201E could be a drop-in consideration, but the recorded benchmark scores show no workload where it outperforms the Ultra 7 265T.
The Ultra 7 265T's 35 W TDP combined with its performance suggests that it delivers higher throughput per watt, though the database does not provide direct efficiency metrics. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 76.8 GB/s also favors the Ultra 7 265T in memory-sensitive tasks. The 20 Gen 5 PCIe lanes versus 16 Gen 5 lanes gives the Ultra 7 265T more headroom for expansion.
In summary, the Ultra 7 265T is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. The Core 3 201E remains a viable low-core-count option for specific legacy platform scenarios, but no performance category in the recorded data supports choosing it over the Ultra 7 265T.