Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear performance winner across all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, delivering a significantly higher average benchmark score of 40967 compared to the Intel Core 3 201E's 19056. The Core Ultra X7 358H sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E is in the 73rd percentile, confirming the substantial gap between these two processors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H records an average benchmark score of 40967, while the Intel Core 3 201E achieves 19056. This represents a substantial overall performance advantage for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the manufacturing process for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is built on a 3 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a much lower TDP of 25.

Q: What is the launch date for each model?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H was released on 2026-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². The chip uses 4 cores with 8 threads, and its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake codename, specifically Panther Lake-H. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, a considerably more advanced node than the 10 nm used by the Core 3 201E. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a larger cache configuration: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

The memory architecture also differs. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with double the bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s. The ECC support differs as well, with the Core 3 201E supporting ECC memory while the Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra X7 358H carries Arc B390 graphics. The PCIe configurations also differ: the Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E versus Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The largest advantage appears in prime number calculation, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 against 57 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of 83.1 percent. This is followed by floating point math, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 103842 versus 33260, a 68 percent advantage.

In multi-core rendering, the Core Ultra X7 358H shows strong results. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3027 versus 1271, a 58 percent lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12011 versus 5297, a 55.9 percent lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 18747 versus 12613, a 32.7 percent lead. The data encryption test shows 26046 versus 8931, a 65.7 percent lead for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

The single-core results also favor the Core Ultra X7 358H, though by smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 2080 versus 1780, a 14.4 percent lead. PassMark single-thread results show 4124 versus 3482, a 15.6 percent lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 301.5 versus 179, a 40.6 percent lead.

Other PassMark tests reinforce the pattern. Integer math shows 83147 versus 43894, a 47.2 percent lead. Data compression shows 332508 versus 164160, a 50.6 percent lead. Random string sorting shows 40357 versus 17783, a 55.9 percent lead. Extended instructions show 27274 versus 11035, a 59.5 percent lead. Physics shows 3021 versus 1141, a 62.2 percent lead. Multithread shows 33802 versus 14839, a 56.1 percent lead.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a decisive performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every benchmark category, with advantages ranging from 14.4 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core to 83.1 percent in prime number calculation. The average benchmark score of 40967 for the Core Ultra X7 358H is more than double the 19056 achieved by the Core 3 201E.

The Core Ultra X7 358H also ranks higher in the overall distribution, sitting in the 87th percentile versus the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra X7 358H include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 with an average score of 41208 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H with 41215, both within 0.6 percent. The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039, showing it competes in a lower performance tier.

The Core 3 201E does offer certain attributes that the Core Ultra X7 358H lacks: ECC memory support, a desktop form factor with a replaceable socket, and a launch MSRP of $134. However, no benchmark advantage exists for the Core 3 201E. The choice between these processors depends entirely on whether the ECC support and desktop socket are required, since performance data uniformly favors the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several key specifications. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock differs: 3.60 for the Core 3 201E versus 1.90 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. Both share the same boost clock of 4.80.

The TDP is 60 for the Core 3 201E and 25 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 3 201E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E, while no die size is recorded for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

The cache configurations differ: L1 is 80 KB per core for the Core 3 201E versus 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra X7 358H. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201E versus LPDDR5X for the Core Ultra X7 358H. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core Ultra X7 358H.

The socket is Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201E and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 3 201E and Arc B390 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The market segment is Desktop for the Core 3 201E and Mobile for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The release dates are 2025-01-12 and 2026-01-04 respectively. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while no MSRP is recorded for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every recorded benchmark category. Its largest advantages come in prime number calculation, floating point math, data encryption, physics, and extended instructions. These results indicate strength in computational workloads that benefit from the 16 cores and the 3 nm process node. The high memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s likely contributes to the strong data compression and random string sorting results.

The Intel Core 3 201E has no benchmark wins, but it does hold positional advantages in specific deployment scenarios. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for applications requiring error-correcting memory. Its Desktop market segment with the Intel Socket 1700 means it can be installed in standard desktop motherboards. The lower single-core performance gap, 14.4 percent in Cinebench R23, suggests that lightly threaded tasks see a smaller relative difference than heavily threaded workloads.

For multi-core rendering, the Core Ultra X7 358H shows a 58 percent lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and a 32.7 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For single-core tasks, the lead narrows to 14.4 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core. The pattern confirms that the Core Ultra X7 358H scales much better with additional threads, while the Core 3 201E remains comparatively closer in single-threaded performance.

The Core Ultra X7 358H's 87th percentile ranking versus the Core 3 201E's 73rd percentile places them in different performance classes. The nearest rivals for each chip confirm this separation. The Core Ultra X7 358H competes with processors like the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, while the Core 3 201E competes with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F. Users requiring maximum throughput should select the Core Ultra X7 358H based on the recorded data. Users requiring ECC memory or a desktop socket have only one option in this comparison, the Core 3 201E.