Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded head-to-head results for the Intel Core 3 201TE, as its benchmark array is empty. All measured performance data in this comparison comes from the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, which holds a complete set of Cinebench, Geekbench, and PassMark scores. The Core 3 201TE shows an average benchmark score of zero and sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 7 255H records an average score of 33537 and ranks at the 83rd percentile.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Core Ultra 7 255H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9240. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core result reaches 6381, and the Cinebench R15 multi-core test produces 1515. In Geekbench multi-core, the Core Ultra 7 255H achieves 14024. These figures define the upper bound of the comparison, since the Core 3 201TE has no recorded scores to place alongside them.

For single-core performance, the Core Ultra 7 255H posts a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1843, a Cinebench R20 single-core score of 900, and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 251. Its Geekbench single-core result is 2335. PassMark single-thread testing yields 4317, and the PassMark single-thread duplicate entry also records 4317. Without any Core 3 201TE benchmark data, the database cannot compute delta percentages or wins for either processor.

PassMark specialized tests for the Core Ultra 7 255H show data compression at 298850, data encryption at 23395, extended instructions at 23755, prime number finding at 303, floating point math at 98796, integer math at 77975, multithread at 30703, physics at 2254, and random string sorting at 36058. These scores represent the only quantitative performance evidence in this comparison, reinforcing that the Core Ultra 7 255H is the sole processor with verified measurements.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 7 255H provide context. AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 33542, a delta of 0 percent. AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS scores 33667, a delta of -0.4 percent. AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX scores 33668, a delta of -0.4 percent. Intel Core i5-12600HX scores 33375, a delta of 0.5 percent. These deltas indicate the Core Ultra 7 255H performs within half a percent of each rival, with the i5-12600HX slightly behind and the two AMD parts slightly ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance in the database?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has recorded multi-core scores. It achieves 9240 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 6381 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 1515 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and 14024 in Geekbench multi-core. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries, so no comparison is possible.

Q: What is the single-core performance of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H?

A: The Core Ultra 7 255H records 1843 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 900 in Cinebench R20 single-core, 251 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 2335 in Geekbench single-core, and 4317 in PassMark single-thread testing.

Q: How does the Core Ultra 7 255H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the Core Ultra 7 255H with an average score of 33537. AMD Ryzen 5 240 scores 33542 (0 percent delta), AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS scores 33667 (-0.4 percent), AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX scores 33668 (-0.4 percent), and Intel Core i5-12600HX scores 33375 (0.5 percent). The Core Ultra 7 255H sits essentially level with these parts.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H list ECC memory support as true in the database.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE targets the desktop segment with an Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H targets the mobile segment with an Intel BGA 2049 socket.

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 node at Intel's foundry. The die size measures 163 mm². Cache allocation includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. The database lists no die size for this part. Cache allocation includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3.

The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm versus 3 nm. The smaller node on the Core Ultra 7 255H allows for a higher transistor density, though the database does not list transistor counts for either processor. The Core Ultra 7 255H also uses a different foundry, TSMC, compared to Intel for the Core 3 201TE.

The Core 3 201TE integrates UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 7 255H integrates Arc Graphics 140T. This represents a fundamental difference in integrated graphics capability, as the Arc-branded solution is designed for more demanding visual workloads.

PCIe support differs as well. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 255H provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), offering four additional lanes for expansion.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ sharply. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core 3 201TE uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count, while the Core Ultra 7 255H does not, delivering one thread per core.

Base clock speeds show 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE and 2.00 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 255H. Boost clocks reverse this ordering: 4.60 GHz for the Core 3 201TE and 5.10 GHz for the Core Ultra 7 255H. The Core Ultra 7 255H can reach a higher peak frequency despite a lower base.

Thermal design power differs by 17 watts. The Core 3 201TE has a 45 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has a 28 W TDP. This makes the Core Ultra 7 255H the lower-power part on paper, which suits its mobile positioning.

Memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 7 255H at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 7 255H has no launch MSRP listed in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Sockets differ completely. The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop builds. The Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049, a soldered mobile package. Part numbers are SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 201TE and SRQAN for the Core Ultra 7 255H.

Both processors were released on the same date, 2025-01-12T17:00:00.000Z, and both are listed as Active in production status. The Core 3 201TE lists no series, while the Core Ultra 7 255H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 255H wins every category where data exists. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide a 4x core count advantage over the Core 3 201TE. The 24 MB of shared L3 cache doubles the 12 MB on the Core 3 201TE. The 3 nm process node at TSMC represents a generational manufacturing advantage over the 10 nm Intel node. The higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.60 GHz gives it a ceiling in single-threaded bursts. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 3 201TE by a wide margin. The 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes offer more expansion than the 16 lanes on the Core 3 201TE.

The Core 3 201TE wins the base clock comparison at 2.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. It also wins on desktop compatibility, as the Socket 1700 platform supports user-replaceable processors, while the BGA 2049 package on the Core Ultra 7 255H is soldered. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 memory, which can be a practical advantage on older motherboards. Its 45 W TDP indicates higher sustained power delivery, though the database does not include performance-per-watt measurements.

For use-case positioning, the Core Ultra 7 255H suits mobile workloads that benefit from many cores and high boost clocks. Its benchmark scores, all in the database, confirm strong multi-threaded capability. The Core 3 201TE suits desktop systems where a lower core count is acceptable and where replaceable CPU sockets matter. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H as the performance leader. Every benchmark score in the database belongs to this processor, and its 83rd percentile standing among all CPUs far exceeds the 50th percentile of the Core 3 201TE. The 16-core configuration, 24 MB L3 cache, 5.10 GHz boost clock, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth combine to produce measured results that the Core 3 201TE cannot match, simply because the Core 3 201TE has no recorded measurements.

The Core 3 201TE remains relevant for desktop builds where the Socket 1700 platform and DDR4 support matter. Its 2.90 GHz base clock is higher than the Core Ultra 7 255H, which can help in lightly threaded tasks that stay within base frequencies. The $134 launch MSRP provides a reference point for its market positioning, though the database does not offer performance data to justify further claims.

Buyers who need verified multi-core performance should consider the Core Ultra 7 255H. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 9240 and Geekbench multi-core score of 14024 demonstrate strong throughput. Buyers who need a desktop processor with a replaceable socket and DDR4 compatibility should consider the Core 3 201TE, with the understanding that its performance profile is unmeasured in the database. The Core Ultra 7 255H also shows competitive standing against its nearest rivals, with deltas of 0 percent versus AMD Ryzen 5 240, -0.4 percent versus AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, -0.4 percent versus AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and 0.5 percent versus Intel Core i5-12600HX. These figures place it in a tight performance cluster, making it a viable choice in its segment.