Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 3 201TE runs at a 2.90 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor uses a newer process node?

A: The Core Ultra 3 105UL uses a 7 nm process, while the Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these chips?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a 45 W TDP, and the Core Ultra 3 105UL has a 15 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 3 105UL does not.

Q: What integrated graphics are included?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 48EU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from distinct Intel design lineages. The Core 3 201TE is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 3 generation, and uses a 10 nm process node. Its die size measures 163 mm². In contrast, the Core Ultra 3 105UL belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1, uses the Meteor Lake architecture with the Meteor Lake-PS codename, and is built on a 7 nm process. The die size for the Ultra part is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Core 3 201TE allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 3 105UL provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra part align with its 8-core layout, but the total shared L3 is smaller than the 201TE's.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 only, with the exact memory type depending on the motherboard, and its dual-channel bandwidth reaches 89.6 GB/s. The Ultra part also has a higher PCIe specification with Gen 5 and 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 3 105UL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes.

Socket compatibility separates the two. The Core 3 201TE fits Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL requires Intel Socket 1851. This means motherboard choices are mutually exclusive. The production status for both is listed as Active, with the 201TE released on January 12, 2025, and the 105UL released on April 7, 2024. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two CPUs, but the Core Ultra 3 105UL has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries at all. As a result, the analysis relies on the Ultra part's measurements and its standing among rivals.

The Core Ultra 3 105UL achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8742 and a single-core score of 1234. In Cinebench R20, it scores 3671 in multi-core and 518 in single-core. The older Cinebench R15 shows 881 in multi-core and 124 in single-core. These numbers place the 105UL in the 68th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13061.

PassMark results for the 105UL cover a broad range of workloads. Multi-thread performance scores 10285, and single-thread performance scores 3382. Integer math yields 41171, while floating-point math reaches 30750. Data compression scores 93961, and data encryption scores 6354. Extended instructions produce 5634, and finding prime numbers records 44. Random string sorting scores 11179, and physics workloads score 718.

Since the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmarks, its relative performance cannot be quantified. However, the architecture differences suggest the 105UL may leverage its higher core count, while the 201TE's higher clock speeds could favor single-thread responsiveness. The data does not confirm either outcome, so any comparison remains speculative outside the measured numbers.

The nearest rivals for the 105UL in the database show how it compares to established processors. The Intel Core i5-9400F has an average score of 13041, which is 0.2% lower than the 105UL's 13061. The Intel Core i7-10750H scores 13024, also 0.3% lower. The Intel Core i5-8500 scores 13142, which is 0.6% higher than the 105UL, and the Intel Core i7-7700K scores 13291, putting it 1.7% higher. These small deltas indicate the 105UL sits in a tightly competitive performance band among these older desktop and mobile parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data favors the Core Ultra 3 105UL in terms of measurable performance, as it holds a 68th percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 13061, while the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark data. The 105UL also brings a higher core count (8 versus 4) and more threads (10 versus 8), which typically supports multi-threaded workloads. Its 15 W TDP is significantly lower than the 201TE's 45 W, suggesting greater power efficiency for sustained operation.

The Core 3 201TE counters with a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.20 GHz) and a larger shared L3 cache (12 MB versus 10 MB). It also supports ECC memory and DDR4, which the 105UL lacks. For systems requiring error-correcting memory or legacy DDR4 compatibility, the 201TE is the only option.

The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201TE is $134, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has a launch MSRP of $295. The 105UL's price is higher, but its benchmark scores and efficiency metrics align with a more capable processor. Users needing maximum multi-thread performance and lower power draw should choose the 105UL, while those prioritizing ECC support and higher clock speeds should consider the 201TE.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification category. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.60 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. TDP ratings are 45 W versus 15 W.

Socket types differ: Intel Socket 1700 for the 201TE, Intel Socket 1851 for the 105UL. Process nodes are 10 nm versus 7 nm. Die sizes are 163 mm² for the 201TE, with no recorded die size for the 105UL. L1 cache per core is 80 KB versus 112 KB, L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB versus 2 MB, and shared L3 is 12 MB versus 10 MB.

Memory support shows DDR4 and DDR5 for the 201TE, with DDR5 only for the 105UL. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on the 201TE and absent on the 105UL. PCIe specifications are Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc Xe-LPG 48EU.

Release dates are January 12, 2025, for the 201TE and April 7, 2024, for the 105UL. Launch MSRPs are $134 and $295, respectively. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 3 105UL wins on multi-threaded performance based on its recorded Cinebench and PassMark scores, which reflect its 8-core, 10-thread configuration. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments or compact systems where thermal output matters. The higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s also supports memory-intensive tasks. For applications that scale with core count, such as rendering, compilation, or data processing, the 105UL is the stronger choice.

The Core 3 201TE wins on raw clock speed, with a 4.60 GHz boost compared to 4.20 GHz. This could translate to better single-thread responsiveness in lightly threaded workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its 12 MB shared L3 cache is larger than the 10 MB on the 105UL, potentially aiding workloads with large working sets. The 201TE also supports ECC memory, which is critical for reliability-focused setups like servers or workstations handling sensitive data. DDR4 support provides an upgrade path for existing systems without DDR5 infrastructure.

The 201TE's launch MSRP is lower, but the 105UL's higher price aligns with its superior core count and recorded performance. The choice comes down to workload requirements: multi-thread throughput and efficiency point to the 105UL, while high clock speeds, ECC, and DDR4 compatibility point to the 201TE.