Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Intel Core 3 201TE and Intel Core Ultra 9 386H occupy different ends of the performance spectrum. The database records a full suite of benchmark results for the Core Ultra 9 386H, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores. This absence of data for one side shapes the entire comparison: the available measurements allow for a quantitative analysis of the Ultra 9, but the Core 3 must be assessed through its architectural and specification differences alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 9 386H delivers a comprehensive set of measured scores across Cinebench and Passmark tests. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score reaches 20547, while the single-core score is 2071.5. The Cinebench R20 results show a multi-core score of 12820 and a single-core score of 1809. In the older Cinebench R15 test, the multi-core score is 3223 and the single-core score is 303.5.

Passmark results for the Core Ultra 9 386H cover a wide range of workloads. The multithread score is 35399, and the single-thread score is 4218 (recorded twice in the database under slightly different test names). Data compression scores 352365, data encryption scores 27150, and extended instructions score 29138. Floating point math reaches 108527, integer math reaches 87284, and the find prime numbers test scores 341. Physics scores 3028, and random string sorting scores 42135.

Since the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries in the database, there are no direct head-to-head scores to compare. The Ultra 9's average benchmark score is 43210, placing it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of 0, which reflects the lack of recorded measurements rather than actual performance. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 9 provide context: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 43326 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 scores 43431 (0.5% higher), the Intel Core i9-12900 scores 42906 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF scores 42830 (0.9% lower). These deltas indicate the Ultra 9 performs within a 1% band of those four established desktop and mobile processors.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Core Ultra 9 386H is the stronger performer based on its recorded benchmark scores and its 88th percentile ranking. Its 16 cores and 16 threads deliver multi-core results that place it alongside high-end desktop processors like the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF, with the Ultra 9 trailing the i9-12900 by only 0.7% and the i9-12900KF by 0.9% in average score. The Core 3 201TE, with 4 cores and 8 threads, has no measured scores in the database, so its relative standing cannot be quantified.

The Core 3 201TE does hold advantages in specific areas that are not performance-related. It supports ECC memory, which the Ultra 9 does not. It also uses the Intel Socket 1700 platform, which is a desktop socket, whereas the Ultra 9 uses the mobile Intel BGA 2540 socket. The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Ultra 9 has no recorded launch MSRP. For users who require ECC memory support or a desktop socket, the Core 3 201TE is the only option between these two.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 9 386H wins in every measured performance category because it is the only one with recorded benchmark data. Its multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 20547 reflects strong parallel workload handling, suitable for rendering, compilation, or other heavily threaded tasks. The single-core score of 2071.5 in R23 indicates capable single-thread performance for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The Passmark multithread score of 35399 reinforces the multi-core strength, while the single-thread score of 4218 supports balanced performance.

The Core 3 201TE wins in platform-level considerations. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Core 3 supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ultra 9. The Core 3 uses the Intel Socket 1700, which allows for desktop motherboard compatibility, whereas the Ultra 9 is a mobile BGA part. The Core 3 has a lower TDP of 45 watts compared to the Ultra 9's 25 watts, though the Ultra 9's lower power draw does not appear in any benchmark advantage since the Core 3 has no scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: Does the Core 3 201TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not support ECC memory.

Q: How does the Ultra 9 compare to the Intel Core i9-12900 in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average benchmark score of 43210, which is 0.7% lower than the Intel Core i9-12900's score of 42906.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is built on a 3 nm process node. The Intel Core 3 201TE is built on a 10 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has a higher L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture with a codename of Panther Lake, belonging to the Ultra 9 (Panther Lake-H) generation. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Ultra 9 is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, while the Core 3 has no listed series.

Process technology differs significantly. The Ultra 9 is manufactured on a 3 nm process, while the Core 3 uses a 10 nm process. Both are fabricated by Intel. Cache hierarchies show different per-core allocations: the Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core 3 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 18 MB for the Ultra 9 and 12 MB for the Core 3.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ultra 9 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the Core 3 uses UHD Graphics 730. PCIe support also varies: the Ultra 9 provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core 3 provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ultra 9 has no die size recorded, while the Core 3 has a die size of 163 mm². Neither processor has unlocked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear distinctions between the two processors. The Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.10 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The TDP differs: the Ultra 9 is rated at 25 watts, while the Core 3 is rated at 45 watts.

Memory support separates them. The Ultra 9 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The Core 3 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory support is present only on the Core 3.

Socket types are incompatible. The Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2540, a mobile socket, while the Core 3 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The market segments reflect this: the Ultra 9 is classified as Mobile, and the Core 3 is classified as Desktop. The production status for both is Active. The release dates differ, with the Core 3 released on 2025-01-12 and the Ultra 9 released on 2026-01-04. The Core 3 has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Ultra 9 has no launch MSRP recorded. Part numbers are SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 and SA4R5Q9EH for the Ultra 9.