Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for the Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This is a major difference in parallel processing capability.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors share the same maximum boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core 3 201TE has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz compared to the 1.90 GHz base clock of the Core Ultra 5 336H.

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

A: The Core 3 201TE is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses a much more advanced 3 nm process node.

Q: How do their cache sizes differ?

A: The Core 3 201TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What type of memory does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and it also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, but does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The benchmark data shows the Core Ultra 5 336H is significantly faster. It achieves an average benchmark score of 34485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two Intel processors is substantial. 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 node with a die size of 163 mm². In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically the Panther Lake-H generation, and is fabricated on a much more advanced 3 nm process node.

The core layout differs fundamentally. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores with 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, which suggests a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores without simultaneous multithreading. This architectural choice prioritizes raw core count over thread duplication.

Cache hierarchy also separates the two. The Core 3 201TE allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 336H has more than double the per-core L1 at 192 KB and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, plus 18 MB of shared L3. The larger cache per core on the Ultra 5 is typical of newer, more efficient architectures.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 336H is equipped with Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Xe3 architecture is a newer generation of Intel's graphics engine. Memory controllers also differ: the Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, while the Ultra 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth but no ECC. The PCIe configuration also differs, with the Core 3 offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and the Ultra 5 offering Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The physical packages are entirely different. The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core Ultra 5 336H uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile soldered package. The TDP reflects this: 45 watts for the desktop chip versus 25 watts for the mobile chip. The release dates are also separated by almost a year, with the Core 3 launching in January 2025 and the Ultra 5 in January 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 336H has a comprehensive benchmark record, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded scores in the database. This makes direct comparison one-sided, but the data for the Ultra 5 is extensive. The Core Ultra 5 336H achieves an average benchmark score of 34485 and sits in the 84th percentile of all CPUs.

In Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 336H delivers strong results. It scores 2418 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 341 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it reaches 10076 multi-core and 1422 single-core. The R23 run shows 23991 multi-core and 3387 single-core. These scores indicate a processor capable of handling demanding multi-threaded workloads like video rendering and 3D modeling.

PassMark tests further quantify the Ultra 5's performance. Data compression scores 280340, data encryption hits 21291, and extended instructions reach 24542. Prime number finding scores 299, floating point math scores 82415, and integer math scores 62070. Multi-thread performance is 28545, physics processing scores 2682, random string sorting scores 34402, and single-thread performance is 4013.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 336H provide context. The Intel Core i7-13700HX has an average score of 34554, which is 0.2% higher than the Ultra 5. The Intel Core i5-13450HX scores 34333, placing it 0.4% behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X scores 34260, 0.7% behind. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 34222, 0.8% behind. This positions the Ultra 5 in a tight cluster with these established desktop and mobile processors.

Since the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries, the database records zero wins for it in head-to-head comparisons. The Ultra 5 holds all recorded performance data. The lack of scores for the Core 3 means its practical performance cannot be quantified from the available information, though its 50th percentile ranking suggests it sits near the middle of the CPU distribution.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz versus 1.90 GHz respectively, though both share a 4.60 GHz boost clock. TDP is 45 watts for the Core 3 and 25 watts for the Ultra 5.

Sockets are incompatible: the Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700, the Ultra 5 uses Intel BGA 2540. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 3 and 3 nm for the Ultra 5. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3, while no die size is recorded for the Ultra 5. Cache differs at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core versus 192 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 12 MB shared versus 18 MB shared.

Memory support differs in type and bandwidth. The Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s and ECC true. The Ultra 5 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s and ECC false. PCIe lanes differ: 16 CPU lanes for the Core 3 versus 12 for the Ultra 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Market segments are Desktop versus Mobile.

The release dates are January 2025 for the Core 3 and January 2026 for the Ultra 5. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 is $134, while no MSRP is recorded for the Ultra 5. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 and SA4RD for the Ultra 5.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H for any workload that benefits from parallel processing. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 3 nm process, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, produce an average benchmark score of 34485. That score places it in the 84th percentile and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-13700HX, a high-end mobile processor. The 16-core configuration shows a 4x increase in core count over the Core 3 201TE.

The Core 3 201TE, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores. Its 4 cores, 8 threads, 10 nm process, and 12 MB of L3 cache place it at the 50th percentile of all CPUs. The higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and the 45-watt TDP suggest a desktop-oriented part that relies on higher clocks per core rather than core count. Its ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility make it suitable for specific low-power server or embedded roles.

For a mobile user, the Ultra 5 336H is the clear choice. It delivers competitive performance against established rivals like the Core i7-13700HX and Ryzen 7 3700X, all while operating within a 25-watt TDP. The 3 nm process and LPDDR5X support indicate a design focused on efficiency without sacrificing throughput.

For a desktop builder needing a simple, low-cost processor with ECC support, the Core 3 201TE remains a viable option, but the lack of benchmark data means its performance cannot be verified against modern competitors. The launch MSRP of $134 for the Core 3 is the only pricing reference point, but the Ultra 5's edge in every measurable performance category is decisive.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 336H wins in every benchmark category that has recorded data. Its multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 23991 demonstrates strong performance in rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The PassMark multi-thread score of 28545 confirms this advantage in heavily threaded applications. The floating point math score of 82415 and integer math score of 62070 indicate solid number-crunching ability. Data compression at 280340 and random string sorting at 34402 show efficient handling of data-intensive tasks. The single-thread score of 4013 ensures that lighter, single-threaded workloads also run well.

The Core 3 201TE has no wins recorded in the database. Its only advantages are structural: a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz, a desktop socket with upgrade potential, ECC memory support, and a lower launch MSRP of $134. These characteristics make it a candidate for specific use cases like a low-power file server or a basic office desktop where data integrity matters more than raw speed.

The 50th percentile ranking for the Core 3 suggests it performs at the median level of all CPUs, which is acceptable for general productivity but not for demanding tasks. The Ultra 5's 84th percentile ranking places it well above the median and close to high-end mobile processors from Intel and AMD. For users who need verified performance, the Ultra 5 336H is the only one with measurable results. For users who prioritize ECC support and a desktop platform, the Core 3 201TE offers those features, but without benchmark confirmation of its speed.