Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the Intel Core 3 201TE against the Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL. Both processors hold a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs tracked, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. This means a direct performance comparison must be built from architectural and specification data rather than measured results.

The Core 3 201TE reaches a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 155UL boosts to 4.80 GHz. That 0.20 GHz advantage for the Ultra 7 is the only clock-speed edge in the comparison. However, the Core 3 201TE starts from a much higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 1.70 GHz on the Ultra 7, which suggests the Core 3 can sustain higher throughput in lightly threaded workloads without relying on boost behavior.

In terms of raw core count, the Ultra 7 155UL offers 12 cores and 14 threads, tripling the core count of the Core 3 201TE's 4 cores and 8 threads. Thread count also favors the Ultra 7, with 14 threads versus 8, a 75% advantage. For workloads that scale across cores, such as compilation, rendering, or virtual machine hosting, the Ultra 7's additional cores and threads provide a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot offset.

Cache distribution also differs meaningfully. The Core 3 201TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 155UL uses 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and also 12 MB of shared L3. Per-core cache is larger on the Ultra 7, which can reduce latency in cache-sensitive loops, but the total L3 pool is identical at 12 MB.

Memory bandwidth favors the Ultra 7 155UL. The Core 3 201TE records 76.8 GB/s, while the Ultra 7 reaches 89.6 GB/s, a 16.7% higher figure. For memory-bound workloads like database queries or large data transformations, that bandwidth gap can translate into measurable throughput differences. Both processors use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 7 supports only DDR5 (depending on motherboard), whereas the Core 3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

The Core 3 201TE includes UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics. The Ultra 7 155UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics, which represents a more modern and likely more capable graphics block, though no benchmark scores exist to quantify the difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201TE wins in scenarios that favor high base clocks and low thread counts. Its 2.90 GHz base clock is 70.6% higher than the Ultra 7's 1.70 GHz base clock. Applications that are latency-sensitive, such as single-threaded database transactions, legacy software, or lightly threaded games, will likely respond better to the Core 3's ability to maintain high frequency without turbo engagement. The Core 3 also supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 7 does not, making it suitable for error-tolerant computing environments where data integrity is prioritized.

The Core 3 201TE also uses Intel Socket 1700 and supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 uses Intel Socket 1851 and PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 CPU lanes. For systems that need high-bandwidth expansion, such as multiple NVMe drives or a discrete GPU with full lane allocation, the Core 3 provides more PCIe bandwidth and more lanes.

The Ultra 7 155UL wins in multi-threaded and bandwidth-intensive workloads. Its 12 cores and 14 threads dominate the Core 3's 4 cores and 8 threads. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is higher than the Core 3's 76.8 GB/s, which helps in workloads that stream large datasets. The Ultra 7 also has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz, meaning even in single-threaded bursts, it can reach a higher ceiling than the Core 3.

The Ultra 7's integrated Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics is a generational step beyond UHD Graphics 730, which matters for small-form-factor systems that rely on iGPU output for media playback, light gaming, or encode/decode tasks. The Ultra 7 also uses a 7 nm process node versus 10 nm on the Core 3, which typically indicates better power efficiency per transistor.

The Ultra 7's 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Core 3's 45 W TDP, a threefold difference. This makes the Ultra 7 far more suitable for passively cooled systems, thin clients, or fanless industrial designs where thermal headroom is minimal.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201TE is built on Bartlett Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node. The die size is 163 mm². The Ultra 7 155UL uses Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, fabricated on a 7 nm process node from Intel. The die size for the Ultra 7 is not recorded in the database.

Both processors share a 12 MB L3 cache, but the per-core cache hierarchy differs. The Core 3 uses 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The Ultra 7 uses 112 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core. This means the Ultra 7 has 40% more L1 per core and 60% more L2 per core, which can reduce memory traffic for frequently accessed data.

The Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 7 155UL supports DDR5 only, with the specification noting that support depends on the motherboard. The Core 3 also supports ECC memory; the Ultra 7 does not. This makes the Core 3 a candidate for workstations or servers that require error correction, while the Ultra 7 is more aligned with consumer or embedded use.

PCIe capabilities are a major architectural split. The Core 3 201TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Ultra 7 155UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This is a significant difference for expansion: the Core 3 can drive a full x16 GPU or multiple Gen 5 NVMe devices, while the Ultra 7 is limited to half the lane count and an older generation.

The integrated graphics differ by architecture generation. The Core 3 uses UHD Graphics 730, a legacy Intel graphics block. The Ultra 7 uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, which is based on Intel's discrete GPU architecture and includes 64 execution units. The Arc Xe-LPG block is designed for more modern media features and higher compute throughput, though no benchmark scores exist in the database to confirm performance.

The Core 3 201TE is part of the Core 3 generation, released on 2025-01-12. The Ultra 7 155UL is part of the Core Ultra Series 1, released on 2024-04-07. The production status for both is Active.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors according to the database:

• Cores: Core 3 201TE has 4; Ultra 7 155UL has 12.
• Threads: Core 3 201TE has 8; Ultra 7 155UL has 14.
• Base clock: Core 3 201TE is 2.90 GHz; Ultra 7 155UL is 1.70 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 3 201TE is 4.60 GHz; Ultra 7 155UL is 4.80 GHz.
• TDP: Core 3 201TE is 45 W; Ultra 7 155UL is 15 W.
• Socket: Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700; Ultra 7 155UL uses Intel Socket 1851.
• Codename: Core 3 201TE is Bartlett Lake; Ultra 7 155UL is Meteor Lake-PS.
• Process node: Core 3 201TE is 10 nm; Ultra 7 155UL is 7 nm.
• Die size: Core 3 201TE is 163 mm²; Ultra 7 155UL is not recorded.
• L1 cache: Core 3 201TE is 80 KB per core; Ultra 7 155UL is 112 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 3 201TE is 1.25 MB per core; Ultra 7 155UL is 2 MB per core.
• Memory support: Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5; Ultra 7 155UL supports DDR5 only (motherboard dependent).
• Memory bandwidth: Core 3 201TE is 76.8 GB/s; Ultra 7 155UL is 89.6 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Core 3 201TE supports it; Ultra 7 155UL does not.
• PCIe: Core 3 201TE is Gen 5, 16 lanes; Ultra 7 155UL is Gen 4, 8 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730; Ultra 7 155UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU.
• Launch MSRP: Core 3 201TE is $134; Ultra 7 155UL is $426.
• Release date: Core 3 201TE is 2025-01-12; Ultra 7 155UL is 2024-04-07.
• Part number: Core 3 201TE is SRPKDQ5CK; Ultra 7 155UL is SRN97.

Both processors use dual-channel memory buses, have 12 MB of shared L3 cache, are aimed at the desktop market segment, have locked multipliers, and are currently active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 7 155UL records 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 3 201TE records 76.8 GB/s. The Ultra 7 has a 16.7% higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 7 155UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What PCIe capabilities does each processor offer?

A: The Core 3 201TE offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 7 155UL offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 7 155UL has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Core 3 201TE's boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 W. The Core Ultra 7 155UL has a TDP of 15 W, which is three times lower.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in use cases. The Intel Core 3 201TE is the appropriate choice for systems that need high base clock speed, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, and compatibility with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its 2.90 GHz base clock is substantially higher than the Ultra 7's 1.70 GHz, and its 45 W TDP allows for more aggressive cooling solutions or conventional desktop builds. The $134 launch MSRP is the lower entry point.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 155UL is the appropriate choice for multi-threaded workloads, low-power environments, and systems that benefit from newer integrated graphics. Its 12 cores and 14 threads provide a large advantage in parallel processing, and its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the Core 3's figure. The 15 W TDP makes it suitable for passively cooled or thermally constrained designs. The Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics block is a more modern iGPU than UHD Graphics 730. The launch MSRP is $426.

Benchmark results are not recorded for either processor, so the verdict relies on architectural specification differences. The Core 3 201TE should be selected for single-threaded performance, ECC reliability, and PCIe expansion. The Core Ultra 7 155UL should be selected for core-heavy workloads, low power draw, and integrated graphics capability. The two processors occupy different niches and do not directly compete for the same buyer.