Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two processors into clearly different roles. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries in the database, so every measured performance result belongs to the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The Core Ultra X7 358H holds an 87th percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile. That percentile gap alone indicates a substantial performance separation, but the two chips serve entirely different market segments.

The Core 3 201TE is a desktop part with a 45 W TDP, four cores, and eight threads. It targets systems where moderate compute, low platform complexity, and a socketed form factor matter. The Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor with a 25 W TDP, 16 cores, and 16 threads. Its benchmark scores place it firmly in the upper tier of mobile computing, with an average benchmark score of 40,967 across all recorded tests.

The data shows that the Core Ultra X7 358H wins every benchmark category where measurements exist. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 18,747 points. In single-core R23, it scores 2,080. The Passmark suite shows similarly strong results: 33,802 in multithread, 4,124 in single-thread, 103,842 in floating point math, and 83,147 in integer math. The Core 3 201TE has no comparable scores in the database, meaning any head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural and platform differences rather than direct test results.

For workloads that scale across cores, the Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear choice. Its 16 physical cores and 18 MB of shared L3 cache feed demanding multi-threaded tasks. For single-thread responsiveness, its 4.80 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process node give it an edge in lightly threaded applications. The Core 3 201TE, with its four cores and eight threads, is best suited to workloads that do not scale beyond a handful of threads, such as basic office tasks, light content creation, or legacy software.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different manufacturing nodes. The Core 3 201TE is built on Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm process, with a die size of 163 mm². The Core Ultra X7 358H uses Panther Lake-H, a 3 nm process, with no die size recorded. The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 3 nm directly affects transistor density, power efficiency, and achievable clock speeds.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201TE has four cores and eight threads. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the mobile chip does not use simultaneous multithreading; each of its 16 cores is a single thread. The desktop chip uses hyper-threading, doubling its thread count to eight from four physical cores.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 3 201TE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Both the per-core L1 and L2 capacities and the total L3 are substantially larger on the mobile part.

Memory support reflects their different platforms. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, exactly double the desktop part. ECC is not supported on the mobile chip.

PCIe lanes differ as well. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The desktop chip is designed to drive expansion cards, storage, and other peripherals, while the mobile chip has a limited lane count appropriate for a compact BGA package.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, a basic desktop iGPU. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390, a more capable mobile graphics solution. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either.

The socket and form factor are another key distinction. The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop LGA socket. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package. This means the former is upgradeable and replaceable, while the latter is fixed to the motherboard.

Release dates position them in different timeframes. The Core 3 201TE launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra X7 358H launched on 2026-01-04 with no recorded launch MSRP. The mobile part is a full year newer, which explains its access to the 3 nm node and newer architecture.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the higher-performing processor across every measured metric. Its 87th percentile ranking, 16 cores, 18 MB of L3 cache, and 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth place it in a different performance class than the Core 3 201TE. The average benchmark score of 40,967 for the Core Ultra X7 358H is the only average score recorded in the database; the Core 3 201TE has an average benchmark score of zero because no tests were run on it.

The nearest rivals to the Core Ultra X7 358H confirm its competitive position. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has an average score of 41,208, which is 0.6% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215, also 0.6% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G scores 40,718, which is 0.6% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41,263, 0.7% higher. These delta percentages are small, meaning the Core Ultra X7 358H trades blows with its closest competitors rather than dominating them.

For a desktop user seeking a replaceable, socketed CPU with ECC support and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the Core 3 201TE is the appropriate choice. It offers four cores, eight threads, and a 4.60 GHz boost clock, which is adequate for mainstream desktop workloads. Its 45 W TDP and 10 nm process are less efficient than the mobile part, but the desktop form factor does not demand the same power constraints.

For a mobile user prioritizing raw compute, the Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear pick. Its 16 cores, 4.80 GHz boost clock, 3 nm process, and 25 W TDP deliver high performance in a power-efficient package. The larger cache, double memory bandwidth, and Arc B390 graphics make it a more complete mobile solution. The lack of ECC and the limited PCIe lane count are acceptable trade-offs for a laptop or compact mobile system.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

A: The Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra X7 358H boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a dual-channel memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s with DDR4 and DDR5 support. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a dual-channel bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core Ultra X7 358H uses Intel's 3 nm process.

Q: Which chip has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE ranks in the 50th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Because the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison is one-sided. The Core Ultra X7 358H holds every measurable win. The most significant result is the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18,747 points, which reflects the mobile chip's 16-core configuration. The single-core R23 score of 2,080 points demonstrates that the 3 nm process and 4.80 GHz boost clock also deliver strong single-thread performance.

In the Passmark suite, the Core Ultra X7 358H shows particular strength in data compression, scoring 332,508. That result is the highest recorded score across all its benchmarks, indicating excellent throughput for compression workloads. Data encryption scores 26,046, extended instructions score 27,274, and prime number finding scores 337. Floating point math reaches 103,842, while integer math reaches 83,147. Random string sorting scores 40,357, and physics scores 3,021.

The multithread Passmark score of 33,802 aligns with the Cinebench multicore results, confirming that the Core Ultra X7 358H is built for parallel workloads. The single-thread Passmark score of 4,124 is consistent with its single-core Cinebench results, showing balanced performance across both test methodologies.

The average benchmark score of 40,967 places the Core Ultra X7 358H within a tight competitive group. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is 0.6% higher, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is 0.6% higher, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G is 0.6% lower, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is 0.7% higher. These deltas are small enough that real-world differences would depend on specific application behavior, thermal design, and system configuration.

The Core 3 201TE has no scores in the database, so its performance can only be inferred from its specifications. Four cores and eight threads at a 4.60 GHz boost clock suggest competent single-thread performance, but the 10 nm process and 12 MB of L3 cache limit its multi-threaded ceiling. The 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and DDR4/DDR5 support are adequate for a desktop part, but they are half the bandwidth of the mobile chip.

The data shows that the Core Ultra X7 358H is the superior processor in every measured category. Its 16 cores, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and newer process node combine to produce benchmark results that are consistently strong across both Cinebench and Passmark tests. The Core 3 201TE remains a reasonable desktop option for users who prioritize socket compatibility, ECC support, and 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes over raw compute performance.