Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two processors is stark and immediate. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark entries in the database, meaning it cannot claim a single measured victory in any workload category. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, by contrast, holds an extensive set of benchmark results across Cinebench and Passmark suites, giving it a clean sweep of every available comparison point.

The use-case split is therefore defined by data availability rather than nuanced performance differences. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus demonstrates measurable capability in multi-threaded rendering workloads, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867 and a Cinebench R20 multi-core result of 18442. Single-thread performance is also recorded, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2261 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4757.

The Core 3 201TE occupies a position where its database profile lists no benchmark outcomes. It is an active production processor with a 45 W TDP, 4 cores, and 8 threads, which suggests a power-conscious design, but the recorded data cannot confirm how that translates into application performance. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with 18 cores and 18 threads, delivers measured results across integer math (125091), floating-point math (162692), and data compression (568721) in Passmark tests, indicating strong throughput in parallel workloads.

For workloads that depend on single-core speed, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus shows a boost clock of 5.30 GHz and a Passmark single-thread score of 4757. The Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, but without benchmark scores, its relative standing in single-threaded tasks remains unquantified. The data supports a clear conclusion: every measured win belongs to the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, while the Core 3 201TE's strengths must be inferred from its specifications alone.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 W, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 3 201TE and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the Core 3 201TE does not.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, so the comparison relies entirely on the recorded scores of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus against the absent benchmark profile of the Core 3 201TE. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867, which places it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 66855 aligns closely with the AMD EPYC 4465P, which records an average score of 66925 and a delta of -0.1 percent, and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67006 with a -0.2 percent delta.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX by 0.9 percent in average score (67469 versus 66855) but leads the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus by 1.1 percent (66159 versus 66855). These nearest rival comparisons show that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in a tightly competitive band among high-end desktop and workstation processors, with deltas under 1.2 percent across all four listed rivals.

In specific Passmark tests, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers a data compression score of 568721, a data encryption score of 42144, and an extended instructions score of 44565. Its integer math result of 125091 and floating-point math result of 162692 indicate strong arithmetic throughput. The find prime numbers score of 486 and random string sorting score of 69090 round out the recorded workload coverage.

The Core 3 201TE has no scores in any of these tests. Its percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs reflects a median position, but the average benchmark score of 0 confirms that no measured performance data exists for it in the database. The implication is that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every available benchmark comparison by default, though the magnitude of that advantage cannot be stated precisely without scores for the Core 3 201TE.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every fundamental specification. The Core 3 201TE uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Intel Socket 1851, meaning they are not socket-compatible. Core count differs substantially: 4 cores and 8 threads for the Core 3 201TE versus 18 cores and 18 threads for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has no hyper-threading, as its thread count equals its core count, while the Core 3 201TE doubles its threads over cores.

Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE and 4.20 GHz for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 5.30 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings diverge sharply: 45 W for the Core 3 201TE and 125 W for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s in favor of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

PCIe lane counts differ, with the Core 3 201TE listing Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus listing Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201TE and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 3 201TE does not. Release dates differ as well: the Core 3 201TE was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus was released on 2026-03-10.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201TE is built on the Bartlett Lake codename within the Core 3 generation, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. Its die size is 163 mm². The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename within the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation, built on a 3 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and it contains 17,800 million transistors, a figure not listed for the Core 3 201TE.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. 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 250K Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core cache allocations on the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus align with its higher core count and newer process node.

The Core 3 201TE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, which the database lists as "Core 3 (Bartlett Lake)", while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)" generation under the Core Ultra Series 2 family. The foundry difference is notable: Intel for the Core 3 201TE and TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The process node gap from 10 nm to 3 nm represents a significant manufacturing advancement, though the database does not provide direct performance-per-watt comparisons between the two.

Both processors support ECC memory and dual-channel memory buses. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus carries a higher memory bandwidth figure, consistent with its DDR5-only support and newer platform. The integrated graphics also reflect a generational split, with UHD Graphics 730 on the older part and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on the newer one.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus as the measured performer in every benchmark category where scores exist. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30867, Passmark multithread score of 51596, and 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs give it a strong position in the database. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P, are within 0.2 percent of its average score, confirming that it competes at a high level among contemporary desktop and workstation processors.

The Intel Core 3 201TE, with no benchmark scores recorded, cannot be positioned against the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in measured terms. Its 45 W TDP, 4 cores, 8 threads, and 12 MB of L3 cache describe a low-power, entry-oriented design that supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The 50th percentile rank suggests a median standing, but the average benchmark score of 0 indicates that no performance data underpins that rank.

Users seeking a processor with verified multi-threaded and single-threaded performance should select the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, as the database contains extensive scores for it. Users prioritizing lower power consumption and platform flexibility, including DDR4 support, may find the Core 3 201TE specification profile relevant, but no benchmark evidence exists to validate its performance claims. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Core 3 201TE does not. The data favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus across every measurable dimension.