Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core Ultra 7 366H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. The margins, however, vary significantly by workload, revealing where the architectural gap matters most and where it narrows.
The largest single deltas appear in the PassMark prime number test, where the Ultra 7 366H scores 326 versus 57 for the Core 3 201E, a difference of 82.5%. This workload is highly dependent on integer throughput and branch prediction, and the result indicates a fundamental performance gulf in that specific compute pattern. Data encryption shows a 65.4% gap (25845 versus 8931), and floating-point math shows a 67.9% gap (103615 versus 33260), both pointing to substantial advantages in the Ultra 7's execution resources.
The Cinebench suite, which stresses both multi-core and single-core rendering, shows consistent deltas around 55.7% to 55.8% across all six tests. The R23 multi-core score of 28477 for the Ultra 7 366H versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E confirms that the extra cores translate directly into rendering throughput. The R23 single-core score of 4020 versus 1780 (55.7% delta) is particularly telling: even with only one thread active, the Ultra 7 holds a massive lead, meaning the advantage is not merely core count but per-core efficiency and IPC.
The narrowest margin is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Ultra 7 366H leads by 13.9% (4043 versus 3482). This is still a clear win, but it shows that the Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz boost clock allows it to stay relatively competitive in lightly threaded scenarios. The data compression test shows a 49.9% gap (327455 versus 164160), while integer math shows a 47.6% gap (83695 versus 43894), both closer to the single-thread margin than the extreme deltas seen elsewhere.
Physics simulation in PassMark shows a 60.4% gap (2880 versus 1141), and random string sorting shows a 55.3% gap (39814 versus 17783). Extended instructions show a 59% gap (26901 versus 11035), and the multithread aggregate score shows a 55.6% gap (33429 versus 14839). Across every category, the Ultra 7 366H delivers roughly double the output of the Core 3 201E, with the exception of single-thread workloads where the lead shrinks to under 14%.
The average benchmark score places the Ultra 7 366H at 41263, which is more than double the Core 3 201E's 19056. The percentile rankings reinforce the divide: the Ultra 7 sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 201E include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12400F (19039, 0.1% delta), placing it in a mid-range desktop performance tier. The Ultra 7 366H instead trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376, -0.3% delta) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, 0.1% delta), a high-end desktop-class performance envelope.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from fundamentally different design points. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the efficiency and performance gap, as the 3 nm node allows for denser, more power-efficient transistors.
Core counts differ dramatically: the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The lack of hyperthreading on the Ultra 7 is notable; it achieves its thread count purely through physical cores. The Core 3 201E relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads from just 4 cores. The Ultra 7's 16 physical cores provide a raw throughput advantage that the Core 3's SMT cannot overcome.
Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 201E offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 366H offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Every level of cache is larger on the Ultra 7, both on a per-core basis and in aggregate. The larger L3 is particularly important for workloads that share data across cores, and the per-core L2 advantage helps single-threaded latency-sensitive tasks.
Base clocks tell an interesting story: the Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz base, while the Ultra 7 366H runs at only 2.00 GHz base. Both boost to 4.80 GHz. The lower base clock on the Ultra 7 reflects its mobile design intent and the thermal constraints of a 25 W TDP, versus the Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP. Despite the lower base clock, the Ultra 7 outperforms the Core 3 in every test, demonstrating that its IPC advantage and core count overwhelm the raw clock speed difference.
Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 7 366H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 and 115.2 GB/s for the Ultra 7, a 50% improvement for the newer part. ECC memory is supported by the Core 3 201E but not by the Ultra 7 366H, a meaningful distinction for reliability-focused desktop builds.
The integrated graphics are also different tiers: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The socket and platform targets diverge completely, with the Core 3 using Intel Socket 1700 for desktop and the Ultra 7 using Intel BGA 2540 for mobile. PCIe lanes differ, with the Core 3 offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Ultra 7 offering Gen 5 with 12 lanes.
The Verdict
The data supports a clear segmentation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark, and its 87th percentile ranking places it among the faster CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 3 201E, at the 73rd percentile, is a competent mid-range desktop part but cannot compete with the Ultra 7's combination of 16 physical cores, larger caches, and 3 nm process efficiency.
The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and the Intel Core i5-12400F, both within 0.1% to 0.4% of its average score. That is the competitive tier it belongs to. The Ultra 7 366H instead matches the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, a much higher performance class.
The choice between the two is not a performance question; it is a platform question. The Core 3 201E is a desktop processor on Socket 1700, supports DDR4 and DDR5, and includes ECC memory support. The Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor on BGA 2540, supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, and lacks ECC. The Core 3 has a launch MSRP of $134. The Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.
For desktop builders who need ECC and prefer a socketed platform, the Core 3 201E offers a reasonable entry point into the Bartlett Lake generation. For anyone who can use a mobile platform or who prioritizes raw performance across every workload category, the Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice from the recorded data.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263, while the Intel Core 3 201E has an average score of 19056.
Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?
A: The Ultra 7 366H leads by 13.9% in PassMark single-thread performance (4043 versus 3482). This is the smallest margin of any head-to-head test.
Q: Does the Core 3 201E win any benchmark?
A: No. The Ultra 7 366H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?
A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Ultra 7 366H does not.
Q: What is the process node for each chip?
A: The Core 3 201E is built on a 10 nm process. The Ultra 7 366H is built on a 3 nm process.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark results show no workload where the Core 3 201E comes out ahead, but the margin analysis reveals which areas are more competitive. In single-threaded tasks, the Core 3 201E comes closest, with the 13.9% gap in PassMark single-thread score being its best showing. The 4.80 GHz boost clock on both chips means the Core 3 can keep up reasonably well when only one core is active.
The Core 3 201E also shows relatively smaller gaps in integer math (47.6%) and data compression (49.9%), suggesting that memory-bound and integer-heavy workloads narrow the divide somewhat. Its support for DDR4 memory and ECC makes it a viable option for legacy or reliability-focused desktop configurations, even if the performance ceiling is lower.
The Ultra 7 366H dominates in every multithreaded and vectorized workload. The prime number test gap of 82.5% is the largest, followed by floating-point math at 67.9% and data encryption at 65.4%. These are workloads that benefit from the 16 physical cores, larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, and the higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Cinebench multi-core scores confirm that rendering and content creation tasks will see roughly double the throughput on the Ultra 7.
For mobile users, the Ultra 7's 25 W TDP and support for LPDDR5X memory make it suitable for thin-and-light designs. The Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP and Socket 1700 package target desktop builds with higher thermal headroom. The integrated graphics also differ, with the Ultra 7 using Intel Xe3 Graphics versus the Core 3's UHD Graphics 730.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process, while the Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. Core counts are 4 versus 16, and thread counts are 8 versus 16.
Base clocks differ significantly: 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra 7. Both share a 4.80 GHz boost clock. TDP ratings are 60 W for the Core 3 and 25 W for the Ultra 7. The Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2540.
Cache configurations differ at every level: 80 KB L1 per core versus 192 KB, 1.25 MB L2 per core versus 2.5 MB, and 12 MB shared L3 versus 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3, versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Core 3.
PCIe configurations differ: Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 3, versus Gen 5 with 12 lanes for the Ultra 7. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 and Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Ultra 7. The market segments differ, with the Core 3 targeting desktop and the Ultra 7 targeting mobile. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the Core 3 and 2026-01-04 for the Ultra 7. The Core 3 has a recorded launch MSRP of $134; the Ultra 7 has no recorded launch MSRP.