Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265F dominates the recorded benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Core 3 201TE holding no measured wins in the database. The Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries recorded, while the Core Ultra 7 265F has 17 recorded results across Cinebench and PassMark test suites. This makes a direct numerical head-to-head impossible, but the data clearly indicates the performance gulf between the two parts.

The Core Ultra 7 265F delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980 and a single-core score of 5,926. For context, the database places this processor at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 64,438. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, scores 64,640, a difference of only 0.3 percent, which places the 265F essentially at parity with its non-F sibling. The AMD EPYC 4464P leads the 265F by 0.6 percent with a score of 64,823, while the AMD EPYC 7343 trails by 0.4 percent at 64,202. The Intel Core i9-13900KS scores 64,051, putting the 265F ahead by 0.6 percent.

In the PassMark suite, the Core Ultra 7 265F shows consistent strength. Multi-thread performance reaches 49,410, and single-thread performance is 4,750. The integer math test records 138,078, floating-point math reaches 173,855, and extended instructions score 39,235. Data compression completes at 507,018, while data encryption scores 39,468. Random string sorting finishes at 62,439, physics simulation records 3,172, and the find prime numbers test yields 416.

The Core 3 201TE, by contrast, has no recorded scores in any of these tests. The database lists its average benchmark score as zero and places it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. Its architecture, a 4-core, 8-thread Bartlett Lake design with a 2.90 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clock, suggests the performance ceiling is far lower than the 20-core, 20-thread Arrow Lake-S part, but the absence of measured data prevents a precise percentage comparison.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265F records an average benchmark score of 64,438. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, scores 64,640, which is 0.3 percent higher. The AMD EPYC 4464P scores 64,823, 0.6 percent higher, while the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 64,202, 0.4 percent lower. The Intel Core i9-13900KS scores 64,051, 0.6 percent lower.

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Core Ultra 7 265F?

A: The Cinebench R23 single-core score for the Core Ultra 7 265F is 5,926. In PassMark, the single-thread test records 4,750, and the singlethread test also records 4,750. The Cinebench R20 single-core score is 2,488, and the Cinebench R15 single-core score is 597.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201TE have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the Core 3 201TE. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile rank among all CPUs is 50.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 7 265F supports DDR5 only, also dual-channel, with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra 7 265F does not.

Q: What is the launch date and MSRP for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE launched on January 12, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 7 265F launched on January 6, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $379.

Q: What are the PCIe lane configurations for these two parts?

A: The Core 3 201TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 7 265F provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 7 265F is the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41,980, combined with a PassMark multi-thread score of 49,410, indicates strong performance in rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration with a 5.30 GHz boost clock gives it a substantial throughput advantage over the 4-core, 8-thread Core 3 201TE, whose boost clock tops out at 4.60 GHz. The 265F also delivers higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, which benefits memory-bound applications.

The Core 3 201TE wins on platform flexibility and low-power operation. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, allowing use of existing DDR4 modules, and includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, so a discrete GPU is not required for basic display output. The Core Ultra 7 265F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A in the database, which means a separate graphics card is mandatory. The 201TE also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the 265F, making it suitable for entry-level reliability-focused builds. Its 45 W TDP is lower than the 265F's 65 W TDP, which reduces cooling requirements in compact systems.

The Core Ultra 7 265F targets high-end desktop workloads where multi-core throughput and high boost clocks matter most. The Core 3 201TE targets basic desktop use, light productivity, and systems that need integrated graphics or ECC support. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiating factor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every measured specification. The Core 3 201TE uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265F uses 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the 201TE and 2.40 GHz for the 265F, but boost clocks favor the 265F at 5.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is 45 W for the 201TE and 65 W for the 265F.

The sockets are incompatible: the 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the 265F uses Intel Socket 1851. Process node technology differs at 10 nm for the 201TE versus 3 nm for the 265F. The 201TE has a die size of 163 mm²; the 265F has a die size of 243 mm². The 265F uses 17,800 million transistors; no transistor count is recorded for the 201TE.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 201TE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The 265F has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 and DDR5 for the 201TE versus DDR5 only for the 265F. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the 201TE and 102.4 GB/s for the 265F. ECC support is present on the 201TE and absent on the 265F. PCIe lanes are 16 for the 201TE and 20 for the 265F, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the 201TE and N/A on the 265F. The 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, while the 265F has a launch MSRP of $379.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename under the Core 3 generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 265F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename under the Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake) generation, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. The 265F is part of the Core Ultra Series 2 family; the 201TE has no series designation recorded.

The 265F's transistor count of 17,800 million reflects a much denser design than the 201TE, for which no transistor count is listed. The die size difference, 243 mm² for the 265F versus 163 mm² for the 201TE, shows that the 265F devotes more silicon area to a larger core count and bigger caches. The 265F's L3 cache is 30 MB shared, 2.5 times the 12 MB of the 201TE. Per-core L2 is 3 MB on the 265F versus 1.25 MB on the 201TE, and per-core L1 is 192 KB versus 80 KB.

The Arrow Lake architecture on the 265F also enables higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, a 33 percent increase over the 201TE's 76.8 GB/s. The 265F provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 16 on the 201TE, which affects expansion capability for GPUs and NVMe storage. The 201TE retains DDR4 support and ECC, features that the 265F drops in favor of higher-bandwidth DDR5-only operation. The 201TE's integrated UHD Graphics 730 is absent on the 265F, which requires a discrete GPU. Both processors share a dual-channel memory bus and an active production status, but their architectural paths diverge on process node, foundry, core count, cache size, and platform generation.