Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 256V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 256V carries a full suite of 19 results. This asymmetry means the head-to-head analysis relies entirely on the Ultra 7 256V's absolute scores and its position relative to other processors, rather than direct side-by-side measurements. The Core 3 201TE's average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it holds a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs, whereas the Ultra 7 256V achieves an average score of 21,112 and sits at the 75th percentile.

The Ultra 7 256V's multi-core performance varies substantially across different test suites. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it records 10,399 points, while Cinebench R20 multicore shows 6,958 points and Cinebench R15 multicore lands at 1,583.5 points. The Geekbench multicore result reaches 8,643. These figures place the Ultra 7 256V within striking distance of several established desktop and mobile parts. Its average score of 21,112 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U, which scores 21,133, a delta of only -0.1%. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600G comes in at 21,088, putting the Ultra 7 256V 0.1% ahead. The Intel Core i3-1220P trails marginally at 21,066, a 0.2% gap, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 155U leads slightly at 21,174, meaning the 256V sits 0.3% behind.

Single-core results for the Ultra 7 256V are equally telling. Cinebench R23 single-core scores 1,877.5, Cinebench R20 single-core records 982, and Cinebench R15 single-core reaches 285.5. Geekbench single-core delivers 1,990. PassMark single-thread performance is 4,029, a figure that appears twice in the database under slightly different test names, confirming consistency. These numbers indicate a strong single-threaded design, which is typical for the Lunar Lake architecture's focus on efficiency-oriented mobile workloads.

The PassMark suite adds depth to the performance picture. Multithreaded score is 19,530, integer math reaches 43,358, and floating-point math hits 58,576. Data compression scores 184,985, while data encryption records 13,998. Extended instructions produce 15,643, random string sorting achieves 22,481, and find prime numbers yields 192. The physics test registers 1,595. These figures, when compared to the near-identical average scores of the Ryzen 5 7530U and Ryzen 5 5600G, suggest the Ultra 7 256V delivers competitive throughput across varied workload types, with encryption and compression being particular strengths given their high absolute numbers.

Because the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmarks, the wins tally stands at 0 for both processors in the head-to-head field. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 0, meaning no direct comparison tests exist. The analysis must therefore rely on architectural characteristics and the Ultra 7 256V's rivalry data to infer relative positioning.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC. This process gap is significant: the 3 nm node allows for denser transistor packing and improved power efficiency per operation, which aligns with the 256V's mobile positioning.

Core and thread counts diverge notably. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores but only 8 threads, meaning no SMT, a deliberate choice in Lunar Lake to optimize power consumption and die area for efficiency. Clock speeds tell a nuanced story: the 201TE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the 256V starts lower at 2.20 GHz base but boosts higher to 4.80 GHz. The higher boost on the 256V, combined with double the core count, suggests the mobile chip can reach competitive peak performance despite its efficiency focus.

Cache hierarchies differ in scale. The Core 3 201TE provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 7 256V offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and the same 12 MB of shared L3. The 256V's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches reflect the needs of its 8-core layout and the higher memory latency tolerance expected in mobile designs. Total L3 is identical at 12 MB, which means the 201TE's 4 cores have access to the same aggregate L3 pool as the 256V's 8 cores, giving the desktop part a larger cache share per core.

Power envelopes contrast sharply. The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Ultra 7 256V is rated at 17 watts. This 28-watt difference is the defining architectural split: the 201TE is designed for desktop sockets with ample cooling, while the 256V targets thin-and-light mobile platforms where thermal headroom is scarce. The socket types confirm this: the 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, whereas the 256V uses Intel BGA 2833, a soldered mobile package.

Memory support also diverges. The 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the 256V. The 256V's memory support is listed as unknown and dependent on motherboard, which is typical for integrated LPDDR designs in Lunar Lake where the memory is often soldered to the package. Both have dual-channel memory buses, but the 256V's bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database.

PCIe lanes show another stark difference. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ultra 7 256V offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. This reflects the desktop chip's need to drive discrete GPUs and expansion cards versus the mobile chip's constrained connectivity for a compact system. Integrated graphics differ as well: the 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 256V carries Arc 140V, a substantially more capable GPU solution for its class.

Release timing and market segments round out the architectural story. The 201TE launched on January 12, 2025, as a desktop part, while the 256V arrived earlier on September 23, 2024, for mobile systems. Both are currently active in production, and both have locked multipliers. The 201TE has a part number of SRPKDQ5CK, and the 256V is listed as SRPMPSRPMZ.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores, and how does that affect threading?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V has 8 cores with 8 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores with 8 threads. The 201TE relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads from 4 physical cores, whereas the 256V achieves 8 threads from 8 physical cores without SMT. The 256V's additional physical cores provide more raw parallel execution resources.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Core 3 201TE is rated at 45 watts TDP, while the Core Ultra 7 256V is rated at 17 watts. This makes the 256V more than 2.5 times more power-efficient on paper, though the desktop chip's higher TDP allows it to sustain higher base clocks at 2.90 GHz versus 2.20 GHz for the mobile part.

Q: What memory technologies does each support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel configuration and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 7 256V also uses dual-channel memory but its specific support is listed as unknown and dependent on motherboard, with no ECC support and no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: How does the Ultra 7 256V compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ultra 7 256V's average score of 21,112 places it 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U (21,133), 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600G (21,088), 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i3-1220P (21,066), and 0.3% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 155U (21,174). These deltas indicate near-parity performance across a cluster of mid-range processors.

Q: What are the physical and packaging differences?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards, has a die size of 163 mm², and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core Ultra 7 256V uses Intel BGA 2833 for soldered mobile installation, has no recorded die size, and uses a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which processor has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra 7 256V features Arc 140V integrated graphics, while the Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Arc 140V is positioned as a more advanced GPU solution, though no benchmark scores are available in the database to quantify the difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 256V |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 7 (Lunar Lake) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| 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 | 12 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | Unknown, depends on motherboard |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 140V |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRPKDQ5CK | SRPMPSRPMZ |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 201TE holds advantages in areas tied to its desktop orientation. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes enable connectivity for discrete GPUs and multiple expansion cards, a capability the Ultra 7 256V cannot match with only 4 lanes. The 201TE's ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive compute tasks, and its DDR4 and DDR5 compatibility offers flexibility in memory selection. The higher base clock of 2.90 GHz gives it an edge in sustained all-core workloads that do not require boost frequencies. The 12 MB L3 cache shared across just 4 cores means a larger per-core cache fraction, which can benefit single-threaded latency-sensitive applications. Its launch MSRP of $134 provides a defined entry point, though pricing comparisons are outside the scope of this analysis.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V wins on mobility and efficiency. Its 17 W TDP is a fraction of the 201TE's 45 W, enabling thinner, lighter systems with longer battery life. The 8 physical cores double the 201TE's core count, and the higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz gives it superior peak single-thread performance potential. The 3 nm TSMC process node provides a significant transistor density advantage over the 10 nm Intel node. The larger L1 and L2 caches per core (192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively) support the 8-core design's data demands. The Arc 140V integrated graphics is a more capable iGPU for gaming and media tasks than the UHD Graphics 730. The 256V's benchmark results, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 10,399 and PassMark multithread score of 19,530, demonstrate real-world capability that the 201TE cannot match in the database's recorded measurements.

The rivalry data reinforces the 256V's competitive standing. Its average score of 21,112 places it in a tight cluster with the Ryzen 5 7530U, Ryzen 5 5600G, Core i3-1220P, and Core Ultra 7 155U, all within 0.3% of each other. This suggests the 256V delivers performance on par with established mid-range processors despite its low power envelope, a notable efficiency achievement. The 201TE, with no benchmark scores and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot be positioned against these rivals in the recorded data, leaving its performance characteristics largely undefined beyond its specifications.

The Verdict

The data presents an asymmetric comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 7 256V is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results, and those results show a capable mobile processor operating at a 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs. Its 21,112 average score matches the performance of several well-known mid-range parts within a 0.3% margin, which indicates the 256V can handle general productivity, content creation, and multitasking workloads effectively while drawing only 17 watts. The 8-core, 8-thread configuration with 3 nm TSMC fabrication and Arc 140V graphics makes it a strong candidate for thin-and-light laptops that need balanced CPU and GPU capability.

The Intel Core 3 201TE, by contrast, is defined entirely by its specifications in the absence of benchmark data. Its 4-core, 8-thread layout with 45 W TDP and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes positions it as a desktop processor for compact or entry-level systems where expansion and ECC memory support matter more than raw core count. The 10 nm Intel process and UHD Graphics 730 are older designs compared to the 256V's 3 nm node and Arc 140V, but the 201TE's socket 1700 compatibility and desktop memory support give it a different utility profile. Its 50th percentile ranking, while lacking scores, suggests it sits in the middle of the overall CPU distribution.

For users seeking a mobile processor with verified performance, the Ultra 7 256V is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For those building a desktop system that requires ECC memory, DDR4 compatibility, or extensive PCIe expansion, the Core 3 201TE offers those specific features at a 45 W power level. The two processors target such different markets that direct comparison is limited, but the 256V's benchmark scores and 75th percentile standing provide concrete evidence of its capability, while the 201TE's performance remains unquantified in the database. The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the 256V is the more thoroughly validated processor, while the 201TE is a specification-defined option for workstation-oriented desktop builds.