Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive sweep. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. The most extreme margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ultra X9 scores 357 versus 57, a 84% advantage. That is the single largest gap in the entire set of measurements.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern of dominance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X9 records 32553 points against 12613 for the Core 3, a 61.3% difference. The same 61.3% delta applies to Cinebench R15 multi-core (3281 versus 1271), Cinebench R20 multi-core (13672 versus 5297), and Cinebench R23 single-core (4595 versus 1780). Single-core performance is also uniformly in favor of the Ultra X9, with the same 61.3% delta appearing across all three Cinebench single-core tests.

PassMark workloads reveal where the Ultra X9 pulls further ahead. Data encryption shows a 70.1% gap (29840 versus 8931), floating point math shows 71% (114500 versus 33260), and physics shows 66.5% (3404 versus 1141). Data compression trails at 57.5% (386591 versus 164160), extended instructions at 64.8% (31315 versus 11035), random string sorting at 60.2% (44648 versus 17783), integer math at 52.6% (92603 versus 43894), and multithread at 61.3% (38298 versus 14839).

The narrowest advantage for the Ultra X9 appears in PassMark single-thread performance, where it scores 4453 versus 3482, a 21.8% lead. Even that smaller margin is decisive. The overall average benchmark score confirms the separation: 47468 for the Ultra X9 against 19056 for the Core 3.

Percentile rankings place the Ultra X9 in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 sits at the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for each processor reinforce the performance tier difference. The Core 3 trades blows with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0% delta), Intel Core i5-12400F (0.1%), Intel Core i5-1335U (0.4%), and AMD EPYC 7773X (0.4%). The Ultra X9 sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 (-0.1%), Intel Core i7-13700KF (0.3%), Intel Core Ultra 7 265T (-0.5%), and Intel Core i9-12900F (0.6%). These rival clusters show the Core 3 competing in a mid-range desktop space while the Ultra X9 operates at a substantially higher performance level.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and design generations. The Core 3 201E uses a 10 nm process and belongs to the Bartlett Lake family within the Core 3 generation. The Ultra X9 378H uses a 3 nm process and belongs to the Panther Lake family within the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. The die size for the Core 3 is listed at 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Ultra X9.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 3 has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Ultra X9 has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no thread multiplier. The cache hierarchy also diverges. The Core 3 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra X9 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The Core 3 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ultra X9 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The lower base clock on the Ultra X9 is offset by a higher boost ceiling. Thermal design power also differs: the Core 3 is rated at 60 W, while the Ultra X9 is rated at 25 W. That combination, higher peak performance with lower TDP, points to the efficiency gains from the 3 nm node.

Memory support and connectivity show clear generational separation. The Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Ultra X9 supports LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe configurations differ as well: the Core 3 offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra X9 offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics move from UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 to Arc B390 on the Ultra X9.

The socket and market segment separate the two completely. The Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment. The Ultra X9 uses Intel BGA 2540 and targets mobile. The Core 3 has a known part number (SRVTR) and a launch MSRP of $134. The Ultra X9 has no recorded part number and no launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E does not win any recorded benchmark. The data shows zero wins across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. Every workload, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark math, encryption, compression, sorting, and physics, favors the Ultra X9.

The Ultra X9 378H wins everywhere, but the size of its advantage varies by workload type. The largest leads appear in compute-heavy integer tasks like prime number finding (84% ahead) and floating point math (71% ahead). Encryption also shows a large gap at 70.1%. These are workloads that scale with core count and raw execution resources, and the Ultra X9 has 16 cores against 4.

The smallest lead for the Ultra X9 is in single-thread performance at 21.8%. That still represents a clear win, and it indicates that the Ultra X9 delivers better per-thread throughput despite its lower base clock. The boost clock of 5.00 GHz against 4.80 GHz likely contributes to this result.

For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, the Ultra X9 holds a structural advantage with 153.6 GB/s against 76.8 GB/s. Data compression, sorting, and multithread results all reflect that wider memory pipeline. The Ultra X9 also carries more L3 cache (18 MB versus 12 MB), which helps in workloads with larger working sets.

The Core 3 does retain some attributes that matter outside raw performance. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra X9 does not. It uses a desktop socket with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, compared to 4 lanes on the Ultra X9. It also supports DDR4, which can be relevant for systems reusing existing memory. These are functional differences, not performance wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H records an average benchmark score of 47468, while the Intel Core 3 201E records 19056. The Ultra X9 also sits at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the Core 3.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ultra X9 scores 4595 against 1780 for the Core 3, a 61.3% difference. In PassMark single-thread, the Ultra X9 scores 4453 against 3482, a 21.8% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra X9 378H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Ultra X9 378H does not.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra X9 378H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has the lower thermal design power?

A: The Ultra X9 378H is rated at 25 W. The Core 3 201E is rated at 60 W. The Ultra X9 achieves higher performance with a lower TDP.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every benchmark test in the database. The overall average score is 47468 against 19056, and the percentile placement is 89 against 73. Any workload measured here, whether single-threaded, multi-threaded, memory-bound, or compute-bound, favors the Ultra X9.

The Core 3 201E is positioned in a different performance class. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core i5-12400F, Intel Core i5-1335U, and AMD EPYC 7773X, all within 0.4% of its average score. The Ultra X9, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945, Intel Core i7-13700KF, Intel Core Ultra 7 265T, and Intel Core i9-12900F. These rival clusters are far apart, confirming that the two processors do not compete in the same tier.

The Ultra X9 also delivers its advantages in a mobile package with a 25 W TDP and a 3 nm process, while the Core 3 uses a 60 W desktop design on 10 nm. The Core 3 offers ECC support, DDR4 compatibility, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which are meaningful for specific desktop use cases. The Ultra X9 offers more cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, a higher boost clock, and a newer integrated GPU.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the Ultra X9 for any performance-sensitive workload. The Core 3 retains value only for desktop builds that require ECC memory or DDR4 support and do not need the performance level of the Ultra X9.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Supported | Not supported |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-04-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SRVTR | Not recorded |