Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is one-sided, as the Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, by contrast, has a complete set of measurements across Cinebench and Passmark tests. The Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core Ultra 5 338H reaches the 84th percentile, a substantial gap in overall positioning.

The Core Ultra 5 338H delivers an average benchmark score of 33,989. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, scores 34,083, which places the 338H just 0.3% behind. The Intel Core i7-12800HX scores 33,875, putting the 338H 0.3% ahead. The Intel Xeon 6353P scores 33,844, with the 338H 0.4% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34,220, with the 338H 0.7% behind. These narrow margins indicate the 338H performs in a tightly contested band among upper-midrange parts.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 338H scores 16,331. This result is consistent with its position above the 50th percentile, as multi-core rendering workloads scale with the processor's core count. The single-core R23 score of 2,044 shows strong per-thread performance, which matters for lightly threaded applications. In Cinebench R20, the 338H scores 10,213 multi-core and 1,441 single-core. The R15 results are 2,504 multi-core and 305 single-core. These escalating scores across R15, R20, and R23 reflect the expected progression of the Cinebench workload becoming more demanding with each version.

Passmark tests show the 338H's strengths in different workload types. Data compression scores 276,539, which is the highest recorded figure among its Passmark results. Data encryption scores 21,367. Extended instructions score 23,906. Prime number finding scores 304, a relatively low figure that indicates the processor does not specialize in that particular mathematical workload. Floating point math scores 84,067, while integer math scores 64,934. Multithread scoring reaches 28,717, and physics scoring hits 2,697. Random string sorting scores 34,082. Single-thread performance is recorded twice in the database, with both entries showing 4,180.

The absence of benchmarks for the Core 3 201TE means no direct head-to-head deltas can be calculated. The database records zero wins for the Core 3 201TE and zero wins for the Core Ultra 5 338H in head-to-head comparisons, simply because no paired measurements exist. This is a limitation of the recorded data, not a statement about actual performance parity. The Core 3 201TE has an average benchmark score of 0, which confirms the lack of recorded testing.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 338H wins in every measurable category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark data. Its multi-core results, particularly the Cinebench R23 score of 16,331 and Passmark multithread score of 28,717, indicate strong parallel processing capabilities. Its single-core Passmark score of 4,180 shows that it does not sacrifice per-thread speed for core count. The data compression score of 276,539 suggests particular strength in file archiving and compression workloads. Floating point math at 84,067 and integer math at 64,934 indicate balanced arithmetic performance across both numeric domains.

The Core 3 201TE cannot be assigned any workload wins from the database because no measurements exist. Its specifications, however, place it in a different market segment: desktop rather than mobile. It uses a 4-core, 8-thread configuration with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which can be compared qualitatively to the 338H's 12-core, 12-thread setup with a 4.70 GHz boost. The 201TE's lower core count suggests it would trail in heavily threaded workloads, while its higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 1.90 GHz could indicate an advantage in lightly threaded tasks that rely on sustained base frequency. But these are inferences from specifications, not from recorded benchmark outcomes.

The 338H's 84th percentile ranking places it above the vast majority of CPUs in the database. Its nearest rival comparisons show it trading blows with the Core Ultra 7 165H and Core i7-12800HX, both established performers in the mobile space. The 0.3% gaps in either direction are within typical run-to-run variance for benchmark testing, meaning the 338H effectively matches those processors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different sockets. The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, belongs to the Core 3 generation, and fits the Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation with the Panther Lake-H variant, and uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The 201TE is a desktop part, while the 338H is a mobile part.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The 201TE uses a 10 nm node, while the 338H uses a 3 nm node. Both are fabricated by Intel. The 338H's smaller process node allows for higher transistor density, though the database does not list transistor counts for either chip. The 201TE has a die size of 163 mm², while the 338H's die size is not recorded.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning no hyper-threading on its configuration. Cache hierarchies also differ. The 201TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The 338H has more cache at every level, both on a per-core and total basis.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 338H supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The 338H's memory bandwidth is substantially higher, which benefits integrated graphics and memory-intensive workloads. The 201TE supports ECC memory, while the 338H does not.

PCIe lanes also differ. The 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The 338H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. This makes sense given the mobile form factor of the 338H, which relies on the platform for additional connectivity. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 338H uses Arc B370, a more capable GPU solution for a mobile part.

The 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134 and a release date of January 12, 2025. The 338H has no recorded launch MSRP and a release date of January 4, 2026. Both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the 338H has a TDP of 25 watts. The 338H delivers far more cores and higher bandwidth at a lower power envelope, which reflects the efficiency gains from the 3 nm process node.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear choice for any workload where benchmark results matter: the Core Ultra 5 338H. It has measurable performance across all tested categories, ranks in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, and matches or slightly exceeds established rivals like the Core Ultra 7 165H and Core i7-12800HX. Its multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 16,331 and Passmark multithread score of 28,717 confirm that it handles parallel workloads effectively. Its single-thread Passmark score of 4,180 shows it does not lag in per-core performance.

The Core 3 201TE cannot be recommended on the basis of measured performance because the database contains no benchmark results for it. Its specifications place it as a lower-core-count desktop processor with a 45-watt TDP, DDR4/DDR5 support, and ECC memory capability. Those features matter for specific desktop use cases, particularly ECC memory support, which the 338H lacks entirely. The 201TE's 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU also provide more direct expansion capability than the 338H's 4 lanes.

For a mobile system, the 338H is the only sensible choice from this data. It uses less power at 25 watts, provides more cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, and a newer process node. The 338H's Arc B370 integrated graphics are also a stronger iGPU solution than the 201TE's UHD Graphics 730, which matters for systems without discrete graphics.

For a desktop build where ECC memory is a requirement, the 201TE has a specification-based advantage that no benchmark can contradict, since ECC support is a binary feature. But for raw performance, the 338H's recorded scores dominate by default. The data does not support any scenario where the 201TE outperforms the 338H in measured workloads, simply because no measurements exist for the 201TE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the only one with recorded scores. It achieves 16,331 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 10,213 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 28,717 in Passmark multithread. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Core Ultra 5 338H and its nearest rivals?

A: The 338H is 0.3% behind the Core Ultra 7 165H, 0.3% ahead of the Core i7-12800HX, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6353P, and 0.7% behind the AMD EPYC 4244P.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process node. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses a 3 nm process node.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 12 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.90 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 5 (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 bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B370 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | January 12, 2025 | January 4, 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SRPKDQ5CK | SA4REQ9EW |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 50 | 84 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 33,989 |