Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a comprehensive set of measurements across Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark tests. This makes direct numerical comparison impossible for most workloads, but the available data for the Ultra 9 285H can be interpreted against its own rival set to establish performance context.

The Core Ultra 9 285H posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20781.5 and a single-core score of 2129.5. Its Cinebench R20 results show 12201 in multi-core and 1722 in single-core, while Cinebench R15 yields 3177.5 multi-core and 313 single-core. Geekbench measurements record 14743 multi-core and 2178 single-core. Passmark results include 34171 in multithread, 4415 in single-thread, 85922 in integer math, 109190 in floating point math, 335859 in data compression, 26140 in data encryption, 26794 in extended instructions, 40931 in random string sorting, 2513 in physics, and 330 in find prime numbers.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 9 285H are tightly clustered. The Intel Core 9 270H averages 38335 points, which is 0.1% lower than the Ultra 9 285H's average of 38312. The Intel Core i5-13600HX averages 38261, representing a 0.1% deficit relative to the Ultra 9 285H. The Intel Xeon w3-2525 averages 38392, putting it 0.2% ahead of the Ultra 9 285H. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 averages 38221, which is 0.2% behind. These margins are extremely narrow, indicating that the Core Ultra 9 285H sits in a highly competitive performance band where differences of less than a quarter of a percent separate the top contenders.

The Core Ultra 9 285H achieves an average benchmark score of 38312 and ranks in the 86th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201TE holds a 50th percentile ranking but has no average score recorded. This percentile gap is substantial: the Ultra 9 285H outperforms roughly eight out of ten processors in the database, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the median. The absence of benchmark data for the Core 3 201TE means its percentile ranking likely reflects specifications and architectural placement rather than measured performance.

In the Passmark suite, the Core Ultra 9 285H shows particular strength in data compression with 335859 points, followed by floating point math at 109190 and integer math at 85922. Its multithread score of 34171 indicates robust parallel workload handling. The single-thread score of 4415, while lower than the multithread figure, still places it competitively against its nearest rivals given the tight delta percentages across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm process node. It contains 16 cores and 16 threads, with the same 2.90 GHz base clock but a higher 5.40 GHz boost clock.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 3 201TE allocates 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 9 285H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. These figures indicate that the Ultra 9 285H offers roughly 2.4 times the L1 capacity per core, 2.4 times the L2 capacity per core, and double the L3 cache overall.

Memory support also separates the two. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 9 285H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics solutions are distinct. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T. The socket types reflect their market segments: the Core 3 201TE fits Intel Socket 1700 for desktop systems, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Intel BGA 2049 for mobile platforms. Both processors were released on the same date, 2025-01-12, and both are currently active in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Process technology differences are pronounced. The 10 nm node for the Core 3 201TE versus the 3 nm node for the Core Ultra 9 285H represents a generational leap in fabrication efficiency. The foundry also differs: Intel fabricates the Core 3 201TE, while TSMC fabricates the Core Ultra 9 285H. These manufacturing distinctions influence power characteristics and transistor density, though specific transistor counts are not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H for any workload requiring substantial compute throughput. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide four times the core count of the Core 3 201TE, and its 5.40 GHz boost clock exceeds the 4.60 GHz maximum of the Core 3 201TE by 17.4%. The 86th percentile ranking against all CPUs versus the 50th percentile for the Core 3 201TE reinforces this performance hierarchy.

The Core 3 201TE serves a different purpose entirely. Its desktop socket, 4-core design, and 45 W TDP suggest a low-power desktop processor suited for basic computing tasks. The Core Ultra 9 285H targets mobile high-performance laptops, with its BGA socket and 16-core configuration indicating a focus on multi-threaded applications such as content creation, scientific computing, and heavy multitasking.

The average benchmark score of 38312 for the Core Ultra 9 285H, combined with its nearest rival deltas all within 0.2%, places it in elite company. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded average score, which limits quantitative comparison but does not diminish its qualitative positioning as a lower-tier desktop option. Both processors share a 45 W TDP and dual-channel memory support, yet their architectural trajectories could not be more different.

Users requiring maximum multi-core performance should select the Core Ultra 9 285H based on its 16-core configuration and benchmark scores. Users needing a straightforward desktop processor with modest requirements should consider the Core 3 201TE, though the lack of benchmark data means its real-world performance remains unquantified in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the core count difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra 9 285H boosts to 5.40 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 12 MB shared L3 cache of the Core 3 201TE.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arc Graphics 140T.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE ranks in the 50th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 285H ranks in the 86th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 285H wins in every measurable benchmark category where data exists. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20781.5 demonstrates strong parallel processing capability, and the Geekbench multi-core score of 14743 confirms this trend. Passmark results further illustrate its dominance in compute-heavy tasks: data compression at 335859, floating point math at 109190, and integer math at 85922 all indicate substantial throughput.

The Core 3 201TE wins in platform flexibility. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, allowing users to retain older memory modules or adopt newer ones. Its Intel Socket 1700 accommodates desktop motherboards, which typically offer more expansion options than mobile platforms. The 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU provide more direct connectivity for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage compared to the 8 lanes of the Core Ultra 9 285H.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285H's 5.40 GHz boost clock gives it an advantage over the Core 3 201TE's 4.60 GHz maximum. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2129.5 and Geekbench single-core score of 2178 for the Ultra 9 285H indicate strong per-core performance. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded single-core scores, so its relative standing remains unknown.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core Ultra 9 285H's 16 cores provide a clear structural advantage over the Core 3 201TE's 4 cores. The Passmark multithread score of 34171 and the Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 12201 are consistent with a high-core-count design. The Core 3 201TE's 8 threads are half the thread count of the Ultra 9 285H, limiting its parallel workload capacity.

The Core Ultra 9 285H also wins on memory bandwidth with 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE. This 33.3% bandwidth advantage supports the Ultra 9 285H's higher core count and faster memory technology. The LPDDR5X support in the Ultra 9 285H offers power efficiency benefits for mobile use, while the Core 3 201TE's DDR4 compatibility provides broader memory hardware options.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core Ultra 9 285H |

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

| Series | None | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake-H) |

| 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 | 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 |

| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 8 lanes |

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

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $651 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SRPKDQ5CK | SRQAL |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 50 | 86 |

| Average Benchmark Score | Not recorded | 38312 |