Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and dominant advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V across nearly every benchmark in the comparison set. Out of 17 head-to-head tests, the Core Ultra 9 288V wins 16, while the Intel Core 3 201E takes only a single victory.

The most dramatic gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against the Core 3 201E's 57, a 70.8% lead. Floating point math also shows a massive split, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 59536 versus 33260, a 44.1% advantage. Data encryption favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 36.8%, scoring 14141 against 8931.

Cinebench results are more nuanced. The Core Ultra 9 288V wins R15 multicore with 1583 versus 1271, a 19.7% margin, and R20 multicore with 7069 versus 5297, a 25.1% margin. Single-core in R15 shows the Core Ultra 9 288V ahead by 40.6%, scoring 301.5 against 179. R20 single-core gives the Core Ultra 9 288V a 25.1% edge with 997 versus 747. R23 single-core narrows the gap to 8.7%, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 1950 against 1780.

The single exception is Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core 3 201E wins by 23.9%, scoring 12613 against 10178. This is the only benchmark where the desktop part proves superior, and it stands out as an anomaly given the pattern of the rest of the data.

In other PassMark workloads, the Core Ultra 9 288V shows consistent but varying leads. Data compression favors it by 12%, scoring 186521 versus 164160. Extended instructions give it a 29.3% edge, 15613 against 11035. Physics testing shows a 30.3% advantage, 1637 versus 1141. Multithread performance is 25.1% higher at 19810 versus 14839. Random string sorting favors the Core Ultra 9 288V by 21.4%, 22622 against 17783. Integer math is nearly a tie, with the Core Ultra 9 288V scoring 44019 versus 43894, a mere 0.3% difference. Single-thread performance puts the Core Ultra 9 288V at 4274 versus 3482, an 18.5% lead.

Average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Core Ultra 9 288V holds an average of 23219, while the Core 3 201E averages 19056. The Core Ultra 9 288V sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design families and target different market segments. The Core 3 201E is a desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process, using the Bartlett Lake codename. It carries 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its thermal design power is 60 watts. The Core Ultra 9 288V is a mobile part from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on Lunar Lake architecture using TSMC's 3 nm process. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its thermal design power is 30 watts.

The core count difference is notable. The Core Ultra 9 288V has twice as many physical cores, but both parts present 8 threads to the system. The Core 3 201E relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores, while the Core Ultra 9 288V provides 8 threads natively without hyperthreading. This architectural choice explains some of the multi-core benchmark results.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core 3 201E uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and also 12 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 9 288V likely contribute to its single-thread and latency-sensitive performance advantages.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus, delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 288V uses LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but delivers 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 77.7% higher. This bandwidth advantage shows up in memory-heavy workloads like data compression and encryption.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 288V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The desktop part has significantly more expansion headroom. The Core 3 201E also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 9 288V does not.

Integrated graphics are distinct. The Core 3 201E ships with UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 288V ships with Arc 140V. The latter is a much newer and more capable integrated GPU based on the architecture differences alone.

The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 9 288V uses Intel BGA 2833. The former is a socketed desktop platform, the latter is soldered to the board for mobile systems. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 9 288V has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Process technology is a major differentiator. The 10 nm Intel process on the Core 3 201E is older and less dense than the 3 nm TSMC process on the Core Ultra 9 288V. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core Ultra 9 288V has no recorded die size. The foundry for the Core 3 201E is Intel, while TSMC fabricated the Core Ultra 9 288V.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 288V dominates the vast majority of workloads based on the recorded benchmarks. Its wins span single-thread, multi-thread, encryption, compression, physics, and floating-point math. The data shows it is particularly strong in integer-heavy and vectorized tasks, with extended instructions scoring 15613 versus 11035.

The Core 3 201E wins only in Cinebench R23 multicore, scoring 12613 against 10178. This test appears to favor the desktop part's sustained power delivery and SMT implementation. The Core 3 201E's 60-watt TDP allows for more sustained boost behavior in prolonged workloads, which may explain this result.

For single-thread responsiveness, the Core Ultra 9 288V is clearly superior. R15 single-core shows a 40.6% lead, and R20 single-core shows a 25.1% lead. PassMark single-thread confirms the pattern with an 18.5% advantage. The higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz on the Core Ultra 9 288V, combined with newer architecture and larger per-core caches, drives these results.

For server or workstation-style tasks like data encryption, the Core Ultra 9 288V is far ahead. The 14141 encryption score versus 8931 represents a 36.8% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 44.1% lead, which indicates strong SIMD and vector processing capabilities on the Lunar Lake architecture.

The Core 3 201E's strengths lie in its desktop platform features. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC memory support, and a socketed form factor. These are qualitative advantages that do not directly appear in benchmark scores but matter for specific use cases. The dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support also provides flexibility in memory selection, though with lower bandwidth than the LPDDR5X on the Core Ultra 9 288V.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a strong case for the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V as the higher-performing processor. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score of 23219 versus 19056, and ranks at the 76th percentile versus the 73rd. The Core Ultra 9 288V also does this at half the TDP, 30 watts versus 60 watts, which is remarkable for a mobile part.

The Core 3 201E's single win in Cinebench R23 multicore is notable but insufficient to offset the broader trend. That test result, 12613 versus 10178, shows the desktop part can outperform in specific sustained multi-core workloads, likely due to its higher TDP and SMT implementation. However, the Core Ultra 9 288V wins the other two multi-core Cinebench tests, R15 and R20, by 19.7% and 25.1% respectively.

For users who need maximum single-thread performance, the Core Ultra 9 288V is the clear choice. Its 40.6% lead in R15 single-core and 18.5% lead in PassMark single-thread are decisive. For users who need encryption throughput, floating-point math, or data compression, the Core Ultra 9 288V is also the better option given the 36.8%, 44.1%, and 12% leads respectively.

The Core 3 201E may appeal to those requiring desktop expansion capabilities, ECC memory, or a socketed platform. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide far more connectivity than the 4 lanes on the Core Ultra 9 288V. But on raw performance, the data consistently favors the Core Ultra 9 288V.

The nearest rival data places the Core Ultra 9 288V at 23219 average, essentially matching the Intel Core i9-11900F at 23254 with a -0.2% delta. The Core 3 201E at 19056 sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039. These reference points confirm that both processors perform at expected levels for their respective tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores. Both present 8 threads to the system, with the Core 3 201E using simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the Core Ultra 9 288V leads by 70.8%, scoring 195 versus 57. Floating point math shows the second-largest gap at 44.1%, with scores of 59536 versus 33260.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E wins Cinebench R23 multicore, scoring 12613 against the Core Ultra 9 288V's 10178, a 23.9% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test where the Core 3 201E comes out ahead.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V provides 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth using LPDDR5X, while the Core 3 201E provides 76.8 GB/s using DDR4 or DDR5. The Core Ultra 9 288V offers 77.7% more bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What are their thermal design power ratings?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Core Ultra 9 288V has a TDP of 30 watts. The Core Ultra 9 288V delivers higher performance with half the power envelope.