Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX across all 17 recorded tests, with the Intel Core 3 201E failing to secure a single win. The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX leads by 87.6%, scoring 460 against 57. Data encryption shows an 81.6% gap (48567 vs 8931), while floating point math trails at 82.9% behind (194998 vs 33260). These results indicate the Core Ultra 9 285HX delivers roughly four to eight times the throughput in heavily parallel integer and cryptographic workloads.

Multi-core rendering benchmarks follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 5656.5 against 1271, a 77.5% deficit for the Core 3 201E. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 20236 versus 5297 (73.8% behind), and Cinebench R23 multicore records 36429.5 versus 12613 (65.4% behind). The gap narrows somewhat in single-core tests, where the Core Ultra 9 285HX still leads by 44.7% in Cinebench R15 singlecore (323.5 vs 179), by 73.8% in R20 singlecore (2856 vs 747), and by 18.6% in R23 singlecore (2187.5 vs 1780). The R23 single-core margin is the closest relative result in the entire comparison, suggesting the Core 3 201E's per-core efficiency is respectable even if its absolute performance lags.

PassMark's multithread test shows a 73.9% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285HX (56902 vs 14839), while random string sorting sits 77% behind (77196 vs 17783). Extended instructions trail by 77.5% (49148 vs 11035), integer math by 71.7% (155076 vs 43894), and physics by 67.2% (3476 vs 1141). The single-thread PassMark score shows a 24.6% advantage for the Core Ultra 9 285HX (4618 vs 3482), consistent with the Cinebench R23 single-core result. Data compression, at 631885 versus 164160, is 74% behind for the Core 3 201E.

Interpreting these deltas, the Core Ultra 9 285HX occupies the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 9 285HX is 76155, compared to 19056 for the Core 3 201E. The nearest rival to the Core Ultra 9 285HX is the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX with an average score of 76212 (a 0.1% difference), while the Core 3 201E's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 (a 0% difference). These positioning data confirm that the Core Ultra 9 285HX competes in a far higher performance tier, not merely a faster version of the same class.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in design. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on Intel's 10 nm process, fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake-HX codename (part of the Core Ultra Series 2) on a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Core 3 201E has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra 9 285HX provides 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading on any of its cores. Despite fewer threads per core, the Core Ultra 9 285HX's 24 physical cores deliver substantially higher multi-threaded throughput, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 36429.5 versus 12613.

Cache hierarchies scale with core counts. 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 9 285HX has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 9 285HX contribute to its superior single-thread efficiency, particularly visible in the Cinebench R23 singlecore gap of 18.6%.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285HX supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 9 285HX provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics solutions are distinct. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The multiplier is locked on the Core 3 201E but unlocked on the Core Ultra 9 285HX. The Core 3 201E targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX targets the mobile segment with Intel BGA 2114. Both processors share the same release date of 2025-01-12 and are marked as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285HX wins every recorded benchmark, so the practical distinction lies in the magnitude of each victory. The largest advantages occur in workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. PassMark find prime numbers shows an 87.6% lead, data encryption 81.6%, floating point math 82.9%, and extended instructions 77.5%. These results point to heavy scientific computing, cryptographic operations, and simulation workloads as the Core Ultra 9 285HX's strongest domains.

The smallest gaps appear in single-thread tests. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows only an 18.6% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285HX, and PassMark single-thread shows 24.6%. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks such as legacy application responsiveness, basic office productivity, or single-threaded scripting, the Core 3 201E is comparatively less disadvantaged. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock versus the Core Ultra 9 285HX's 5.50 GHz boost clock partially explains why the single-core gap is narrower than the multi-core gap.

The Core 3 201E's lower TDP of 60 watts versus 55 watts for the Core Ultra 9 285HX is notable given the massive performance difference. The Core Ultra 9 285HX delivers its superior scores while drawing slightly less power on paper, a result of the 3 nm process advantage. However, the Core 3 201E's desktop form factor with Socket 1700 allows for conventional cooling solutions, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX's mobile BGA 2114 package is typically found in high-end laptops.

For workloads that favor the Core 3 201E, the data shows no benchmark where it leads. The database records zero wins for the Core 3 201E across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 3 201E's only relative advantages are structural: dual memory type support (DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR5 only), lower transistor count for simpler designs, and a smaller die size. These do not translate into any measured performance win.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category recorded. Core count: 4 versus 24. Thread count: 8 versus 24. Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 5.50 GHz. TDP: 60 watts versus 55 watts. Socket: Intel Socket 1700 versus Intel BGA 2114. Codename: Bartlett Lake versus Arrow Lake-HX. 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 sizes all differ: L1 per core 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 per core 1.25 MB versus 3 MB, L3 shared 12 MB versus 36 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 CPU only. Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Market segment: Desktop versus Mobile. Multiplier: locked versus unlocked. Part number: SRVTR versus SRVFJ.

The launch MSRP of the Core 3 201E is $134; the Core Ultra 9 285HX has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both processors support ECC memory, both use dual-channel memory buses, both have a release date of 2025-01-12, and both hold Active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 2187.5 in Cinebench R23 singlecore, which is 18.6% ahead of the Core 3 201E's score of 1780.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 3 201E and the Core Ultra 9 285HX support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX supports DDR5 only.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 36429.5 versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a 65.4% lead for the Core Ultra 9 285HX.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 9 285HX uses TSMC's 3 nm process.