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

The Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H represent two distinct approaches to processor design within Intel's 2025 lineup. The Core 3 201TE is a desktop-oriented chip built on a mature 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra 7 265H is a mobile processor fabricated on a 3 nm node by TSMC. The benchmark data available in the database shows a clear performance hierarchy between the two, with the Core Ultra 7 265H delivering substantially higher scores across every recorded workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a complete suite of results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries in the database. This absence of data for the Core 3 201TE means a direct score-by-score comparison cannot be constructed. The analysis must therefore rely on the performance characteristics embedded in the architectural specifications of the Core 3 201TE and the measured results of the Core Ultra 7 265H.

The Core Ultra 7 265H posts a multi-core score of 19,940 in Cinebench R23, a result that places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database. Its single-core result in the same test is 2,080 points. In the older Cinebench R20 suite, the same chip scores 12,131 points in multi-core and 1,712 points in single-core. The Cinebench R15 tests show 2,989 points in multi-core and 307 points in single-core. These figures indicate a processor that scales strongly under multi-threaded load while maintaining competitive single-thread performance.

The Passmark suite of tests further characterizes the Core Ultra 7 265H. It achieves 34,027 points in the multithread test and 4,334 points in the single-thread test. The integer math workload returns 85,479 points, and floating point math returns 109,123 points. Data compression scores 334,711 points, data encryption scores 26,005 points, and extended instructions score 26,805 points. The find prime numbers test returns 335 points, physics simulation scores 2,497 points, and random string sorting scores 40,742 points.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265H is 41,621 points. This places it in close competition with several established desktop processors. The Intel Core 7 251TE averages 41,650 points, a difference of just 0.1 percent. The Intel Core i7-12850HX averages 41,779 points, which is 0.4 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-14650HX averages 41,576 points, 0.1 percent lower. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X averages 41,376 points, 0.6 percent lower. These narrow margins indicate that the Core Ultra 7 265H sits within a tightly packed performance cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Its multi-core performance benefits from a 16-core, 16-thread configuration, which is four times the core count of the Core 3 201TE. The 4-core, 8-thread layout of the Core 3 201TE limits its parallel workload capacity, and the Core Ultra 7 265H takes full advantage of its additional cores in tests like Cinebench R23 multi-core and Passmark multithread.

Single-thread performance also favors the Core Ultra 7 265H. Its boost clock reaches 5.30 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the Core 3 201TE. The newer 3 nm process node from TSMC, combined with the Arrow Lake architecture, contributes to higher instruction-per-clock efficiency. The Passmark single-thread score of 4,334 points reflects this advantage.

The Core 3 201TE retains an edge in specific platform characteristics. It supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 7 265H provides 8 lanes. The desktop chip also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving system builders the option of using older, widely available memory modules. The mobile chip restricts memory support to DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core 3 201TE uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, which is a common desktop standard, whereas the Core Ultra 7 265H is soldered via Intel BGA 2049 and cannot be upgraded independently.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their internal design. The 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 own foundry. The Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Its 3 nm process node is manufactured by TSMC, marking a significant departure in fabrication strategy.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Core Ultra 7 265H does not use simultaneous multithreading, as indicated by its equal core and thread counts. The Core 3 201TE relies on Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 3 201TE provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 7 265H provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger cache allocations on the Core Ultra 7 265H support its higher throughput in data-intensive workloads.

Memory bandwidth favors the Core Ultra 7 265H at 102.4 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE. Both processors use dual-channel memory buses. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 7 265H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both chips support ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 7 265H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The Arc solution is positioned as a more capable integrated GPU, though no benchmark scores are recorded for either iGPU in the database.

The die size of the Core 3 201TE is 163 mm², while the die size of the Core Ultra 7 265H is not recorded. The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265H has a TDP of 28 watts, reflecting its mobile orientation and more efficient process node. The Core Ultra 7 265H also has a higher boost clock at 5.30 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, and a lower base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the maximum boost clock for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H boosts to 5.30 GHz. The Intel Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the process nodes for these chips?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE is built on a 10 nm process by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 7 265H?

A: The average benchmark score is 41,621 points, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly positions the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H as the stronger processor. Its 16 cores and 16 threads deliver multi-core performance that the 4-core Core 3 201TE cannot match. The higher boost clock, larger cache hierarchy, and newer 3 nm process node all contribute to its measured scores. The Core Ultra 7 265H achieves an 88th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile.

The Core 3 201TE is a desktop processor with a 45-watt TDP, Socket 1700 compatibility, and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. Its 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU exceed the 8 lanes available on the Core Ultra 7 265H. This makes the Core 3 201TE a suitable choice for systems that require a desktop platform with expandable PCIe connectivity and legacy memory support.

The Core Ultra 7 265H is a mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP and BGA 2049 socket. It delivers higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and uses the more advanced Arc Graphics 140T integrated GPU. Its 16 cores and 24 MB of L3 cache make it the clear choice for workloads that benefit from parallel processing.

Users who need maximum multi-threaded performance and are building on a mobile platform should select the Core Ultra 7 265H. Users who require a desktop socket with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and DDR4 compatibility should consider the Core 3 201TE. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 201TE outperforms the Core Ultra 7 265H in compute workloads, given the complete absence of benchmark scores for the Core 3 201TE and the strong measured results of the Core Ultra 7 265H.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core Ultra 7 265H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra 7 265H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors were released on the same date and are currently marked as Active in production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 201TE carries part number SRPKDQ5CK, while the Core Ultra 7 265H carries part number SRQAQ. The Core 3 201TE has a die size of 163 mm², and the die size for the Core Ultra 7 265H is not recorded in the database. The market segment for the Core 3 201TE is Desktop, while the Core Ultra 7 265H is classified as Mobile.