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

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Out of 17 compared tests, it takes all 17, leaving the Intel Core 3 201E with zero wins. This is not a close contest by any metric. The Core Ultra 9 285K leads by margins ranging from 25.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 89.5% in PassMark find prime numbers.

The Intel Core 3 201E does not win any workload category, but it still occupies a distinct position in the desktop market. It is an active, 4-core, 8-thread part with a 60 W TDP, built for Intel Socket 1700, and it sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 9 285K, by contrast, reaches the 96th percentile. The average benchmark score tells the same story: 19,056 for the Core 3 201E versus 83,807 for the Core Ultra 9 285K, a 4.4x gap in aggregate performance.

The use-case split is therefore not about which processor wins, but about what each processor is designed to do. The Core 3 201E is a low-power entry point with a 60 W TDP, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, and ECC memory capability. The Core Ultra 9 285K is a 125 W flagship with 24 cores, 24 threads, DDR5-only memory, and an unlocked multiplier. The data indicates the Core 3 201E targets basic desktop workloads where power draw and platform cost matter, while the Core Ultra 9 285K targets heavily threaded productivity and content creation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built on different process nodes. The Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake on a 10 nm node, with Intel as the foundry and a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285K uses Arrow Lake-S on a 3 nm node, with TSMC as the foundry and a die size of 243 mm². The Core Ultra 9 285K integrates 17,800 million transistors; the Core 3 201E has no transistor count recorded.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 9 285K has 24 cores and 24 threads. That difference alone explains most of the multicore performance gap. The Core Ultra 9 285K does not use simultaneous multithreading, hence 24 threads from 24 cores, whereas the Core 3 201E doubles its threads through Hyper-Threading-style technology.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 201E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 285K provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the Core Ultra 9 285K directly supports its much higher multithreaded throughput.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 9 285K as well. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz versus 3.60 GHz, and its boost clock is 5.70 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. Both processors support ECC memory, both use dual-channel memory buses, and both are on desktop sockets, but the sockets differ: LGA 1700 for the Core 3 201E and LGA 1851 for the Core Ultra 9 285K. PCIe lanes also differ, with 16 Gen 5 lanes on the Core 3 201E and 20 Gen 5 lanes on the Core Ultra 9 285K.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201E carries UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285K carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The Core Ultra 9 285K has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 3 201E does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the head-to-head set is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 9 285K scores 541 against 57, a delta of 89.5%. That test is heavily integer and cache sensitive, and the 36 MB L3 cache plus 24 cores dominate the 4-core part.

PassMark data encryption shows an 84.5% delta, with the Core Ultra 9 285K at 57,745 versus 8,931. PassMark floating point math follows at 85.2% delta, 224,324 versus 33,260. PassMark extended instructions shows an 82.3% delta, 62,277 versus 11,035. PassMark random string sorting is 81.3% behind, 94,927 versus 17,783.

Cinebench multicore results are similarly lopsided. Cinebench R15 multicore: 6,494 versus 1,271, an 80.4% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore: 24,003 versus 5,297, a 77.9% delta. Cinebench R23 multicore: 42,522 versus 12,613, a 70.3% delta. PassMark multithread: 67,260 versus 14,839, a 77.9% delta. PassMark integer math: 172,379 versus 43,894, a 74.5% delta. PassMark physics: 3,938 versus 1,141, a 71% delta.

Single-core gaps are smaller but still decisive. Cinebench R15 single-core: 359 versus 179, a 50.1% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core: 3,388 versus 747, a 78% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core: 2,377 versus 1,780, a 25.1% delta, the closest margin recorded. PassMark single-thread: 5,087 versus 3,482, a 31.6% delta.

The pattern is consistent: the Core Ultra 9 285K wins every test, with the smallest edge in single-threaded workloads and the largest in cache-heavy and multi-threaded workloads. The Core 3 201E cannot close the gap in any recorded benchmark.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the faster processor in every measured workload, with an average benchmark score of 83,807 versus 19,056 for the Intel Core 3 201E. It sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd.

For users who need maximum multicore throughput, data compression, encryption, or floating-point performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K is the only choice from this comparison. It delivers 36 MB of shared L3, 24 cores, a 5.70 GHz boost clock, and an unlocked multiplier. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 84,003 average score and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85,072, confirming it sits in flagship-class territory.

The Intel Core 3 201E serves a different role. It is a 60 W desktop part on LGA 1700 with DDR4 and DDR5 support, ECC memory, and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and the Intel Core i5-12400F, with average scores within 0.4% of its own. It offers a functional desktop experience for light workloads, but the data shows it is not competitive with the Core Ultra 9 285K in any benchmark.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Core Ultra 9 285K for performance-oriented builds, choose the Core 3 201E for low-power or entry-level desktop systems where the 60 W TDP and older platform are acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K has an average benchmark score of 83,807. The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19,056.

Q: Which processor has the highest single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285K scores 2,377 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 1,780 for the Core 3 201E, a 25.1% advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 24 |

| Threads | 8 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-10-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $589 |