Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 228V Comparison

Intel Core 3 201TE and Intel Core Ultra 5 228V occupy different corners of the Intel lineup, one a desktop processor on Socket 1700 and the other a mobile chip on BGA 2833. The recorded data strongly favors the Core Ultra 5 228V in almost every measurable way, but the Core 3 201TE holds specific advantages in power envelope expectations and platform flexibility. The Core Ultra 5 228V sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile, a significant gap that shows up across nearly all benchmark categories. The Core Ultra 5 228V also has an average benchmark score of 21440, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct comparisons reliant on the available data for the mobile part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It posts strong multi-threaded scores across Cinebench versions, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9932 and a Cinebench R20 multicore score of 6491. It also leads in single-threaded performance, with Cinebench R23 singlecore at 1758 and PassMark single thread at 3836. The Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries, so the database shows zero wins for it and all recorded wins for the Core Ultra 5 228V.

The Core 3 201TE does have structural advantages that do not appear in benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra 5 228V does not. It also uses a desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, allowing for platform-level upgrades and a wider range of motherboards. The Core 3 201TE has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 228V, and a slightly higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. These clock advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the database, as no scores exist for the Core 3 201TE.

The Core Ultra 5 228V wins on process technology and efficiency targets. It uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The Core Ultra 5 228V has a TDP of 17 watts, compared to 45 watts for the Core 3 201TE, indicating a much lower power draw for mobile use. The Core Ultra 5 228V also has more cores, 8 versus 4, and a larger L1 cache of 192 KB per core versus 80 KB per core.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 3 201TE is 0.10 GHz higher in this metric.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process node from Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores. Both processors have 8 threads.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multicore scores for the Core Ultra 5 228V?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9932 and a Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1758.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 5 228V compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Core Ultra 5 228V has an average benchmark score of 21440. It is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i9-11900H, 0.9% behind the Intel Xeon D-1746TER, and 1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9454.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Core 3 201TE, meaning all direct comparisons come from the Core Ultra 5 228V's standalone scores. The Core Ultra 5 228V delivers strong results in multi-threaded workloads, with a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1502.5 and a Cinebench R20 multicore score of 6491. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9932 places it well above the 50th percentile mark where the Core 3 201TE sits, reinforcing the performance gap.

Single-threaded performance also favors the Core Ultra 5 228V. It scores 267 in Cinebench R15 singlecore, 916 in Cinebench R20 singlecore, and 1758 in Cinebench R23 singlecore. The PassMark single thread score of 3836 further confirms its strength in lightly threaded applications. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded scores in these tests, so the database cannot show a direct comparison, but the percentile difference, 50th for the Core 3 201TE versus 75th for the Core Ultra 5 228V, indicates a clear hierarchy.

In PassMark tests, the Core Ultra 5 228V shows balanced performance across different workload types. It scores 173924 in data compression, 13032 in data encryption, and 14801 in extended instructions. Integer math scores reach 39679, floating point math reaches 53310, and multithread scores reach 18227. The physics score is 1538, and random string sorting reaches 21254. The Core 3 201TE has no comparable numbers in the database, making the Core Ultra 5 228V the only benchmarked part of the two.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 228V provide context for its performance. It sits nearly level with the AMD Ryzen 5 2600, which has an average score of 21484 and a delta of -0.2%. The Intel Core i9-11900H is 0.3% behind, with an average score of 21367. The Intel Xeon D-1746TER is 0.9% ahead at 21635, and the AMD EPYC 9454 is 1% behind at 21223. These margins are tight, all within a single percentage point, indicating the Core Ultra 5 228V competes directly with a range of older desktop and mobile parts.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 3 201TE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 228V has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. TDP ratings differ substantially, with the Core 3 201TE rated at 45 watts and the Core Ultra 5 228V rated at 17 watts.

Cache allocations also differ. The Core 3 201TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 228V has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 201TE has a larger L3 cache overall, but the Core Ultra 5 228V has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 228V has memory support listed as unknown, depending on the motherboard, with dual-channel configuration and no recorded memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201TE but not on the Core Ultra 5 228V.

PCIe lanes differ significantly. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 228V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 3 201TE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 5 228V using Arc 130V. The release dates show the Core Ultra 5 228V launched on 2024-09-23, while the Core 3 201TE launched on 2025-01-12.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 163 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V uses the Lunar Lake codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial, with the Core Ultra 5 228V using a more advanced fabrication technology.

The Core 3 201TE has no recorded transistor count, and the Core Ultra 5 228V also has no recorded transistor count. The die size is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 163 mm², with no die size listed for the Core Ultra 5 228V. Both processors have unlocked multipliers set to false, meaning neither supports overclocking through the multiplier.

Market segments differ clearly. The Core 3 201TE is marked as a Desktop processor, while the Core Ultra 5 228V is marked as Mobile. This aligns with their sockets and TDP ratings, with the desktop part using Intel Socket 1700 and the mobile part using Intel BGA 2833. The production status for both is Active, and both use Intel as the manufacturer.

The Core Ultra 5 228V has a part number of SRPMVSRPMU, while the Core 3 201TE has a part number of SRPKDQ5CK. The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core Ultra 5 228V has no recorded launch MSRP. The architecture differences point to divergent design goals, with the Core 3 201TE aimed at desktop efficiency and the Core Ultra 5 228V aimed at mobile power efficiency.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 228V is the clear performance leader in the database, with an average benchmark score of 21440 and a 75th percentile ranking. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark scores, placing it at the 50th percentile by default. Users prioritizing raw compute performance should select the Core Ultra 5 228V, as it delivers strong multi-threaded and single-threaded results across Cinebench and PassMark tests.

The Core 3 201TE retains appeal for specific use cases. Its support for ECC memory makes it suitable for reliability-focused desktop builds where error correction is required. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more expansion capability than the 4 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 228V. The higher base and boost clocks, 2.90 GHz and 4.60 GHz respectively, could benefit workloads that depend on clock speed rather than core count, though no benchmark data confirms this advantage.

The Core Ultra 5 228V wins on efficiency and core count. Its 17 watt TDP is substantially lower than the 45 watt TDP of the Core 3 201TE, making it the better fit for mobile or power-constrained environments. Its 8 cores, compared to 4, provide more parallel processing capability, and its 3 nm process from TSMC represents a more advanced manufacturing node than the 10 nm process of the Core 3 201TE.

The data shows a straightforward choice for most users. The Core Ultra 5 228V outperforms in every benchmarked category and sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201TE offers ECC support, more PCIe lanes, and a desktop socket, but without recorded benchmark scores, its performance cannot be verified. The nearest rival comparisons for the Core Ultra 5 228V, all within 1% of its average score, confirm it competes at a level that the Core 3 201TE, with no scores, has not demonstrated.