Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H shows two processors aimed at different market segments with vastly different performance profiles. The Core Ultra X7 368H holds the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile. This places the mobile part firmly in the upper tier of recorded processors, while the desktop part lands in the middle of the distribution.

The Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads and any application that scales across cores. Its 16 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, deliver benchmark results that the 4-core, 8-thread Core 3 201TE cannot approach. The data shows the mobile chip scoring 28,221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a figure that reflects its substantial core advantage.

The Core 3 201TE serves a different role. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock and single-core performance make it a competent desktop processor for tasks that do not heavily utilize multiple cores. The 45 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700 compatibility position it as a conventional desktop part, whereas the Ultra X7 368H uses a 25 W TDP and Intel BGA 2540, indicating a mobile-first design.

For users constrained to the desktop platform with Socket 1700, the Core 3 201TE is the only option between these two. For portable systems or anyone able to use the BGA 2540 platform, the Core Ultra X7 368H offers dramatically higher multi-threaded throughput and better memory bandwidth. The choice ultimately depends on platform requirements rather than performance parity, as the two chips do not compete in the same form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel product lines and manufacturing nodes. The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process node, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, on a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process difference is substantial: the 3 nm node allows for significantly more transistors in a similar area, though the database does not record transistor counts for either part.

Core counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, which means it does not use simultaneous multi-threading; each core provides one thread. The Ultra X7 368H therefore has four times the physical cores but only twice the thread count of the Core 3 201TE.

Cache hierarchies reflect the core count disparity. 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 cache. The Core Ultra X7 368H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger on the Ultra X7 368H, and the total L3 is 50% larger.

Memory support diverges completely. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support. The Core Ultra X7 368H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with double the bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s and no ECC. The mobile chip's memory controller is tuned for high-bandwidth low-power memory, while the desktop chip supports conventional DIMMs with error correction.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X7 368H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The desktop part offers substantially more PCIe lanes for expansion cards and peripherals. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra X7 368H uses Arc B390, a more capable graphics solution.

The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core Ultra X7 368H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Core 3 201TE was released on January 12, 2025, and the Core Ultra X7 368H on January 4, 2026, placing the mobile part roughly a year newer in the product cycle.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ultra X7 368H provides four times the physical core count.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra X7 368H boosts to 5.00 GHz. The mobile chip has a 0.40 GHz higher boost clock despite its larger core count.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra X7 368H does not. This makes the desktop part suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X only. The Ultra X7 368H has 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, double the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 3 201TE.

Q: How many PCIe Gen 5 lanes does each provide?

A: The Core 3 201TE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra X7 368H provides 4 Gen 5 lanes. The desktop part has significantly more expansion capability.

Q: What are their process nodes?

A: The Core 3 201TE is built on a 10 nm node, and the Core Ultra X7 368H is built on a 3 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. Core count is 4 for the Core 3 201TE versus 16 for the Core Ultra X7 368H. Threads are 8 versus 16. Base clock is 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE versus 2.00 GHz for the Ultra X7 368H, a 0.90 GHz advantage for the desktop part at idle frequency. Boost clock reverses this: 4.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, favoring the mobile chip by 0.40 GHz.

TDP differs by 20 W, with the Core 3 201TE rated at 45 W and the Ultra X7 368H at 25 W. The mobile part delivers higher peak performance within a lower thermal envelope, reflecting the efficiency of the 3 nm process. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201TE, Intel BGA 2540 for the Ultra X7 368H.

Process nodes are 10 nm versus 3 nm. Die size is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 163 mm²; the Ultra X7 368H has no recorded die size. Cache differs at every level: L1 per core is 80 KB versus 192 KB, L2 per core is 1.25 MB versus 2.5 MB, and L3 shared is 12 MB versus 18 MB.

Memory support, bandwidth, and ECC capability all differ. The Core 3 201TE uses DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s and ECC enabled. The Ultra X7 368H uses LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 4, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Arc B390. Market segments are Desktop versus Mobile. Release dates are January 12, 2025 versus January 4, 2026. The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134; the Ultra X7 368H has none recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results only for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct comparisons rely on the Ultra X7 368H's absolute results and its position among nearest rivals.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra X7 368H scores 28,221. This result places it in a competitive cluster with the Intel Core 7 253PE, which scores 40,557 on average and trails by only 0.1%, and the Intel Core 5 223PE at 40,585, also 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940H scores 40,431 and is 0.2% ahead of the Ultra X7 368H, while the Intel Xeon 6507P scores 40,426, also 0.2% ahead. These delta percentages indicate the Ultra X7 368H sits within a tight band around these rivals, with no more than 0.2% separating it from any of them.

Single-core performance in Cinebench R23 shows 3,984 for the Ultra X7 368H. The Cinebench R20 results are 11,852 multi-core and 1,673 single-core. Cinebench R15 results are 2,844 multi-core and 401 single-core. These scores confirm strong scaling from the 16-core design, with the multi-core figures roughly seven times the single-core figures in the Cinebench tests.

PassMark results cover additional workload types. The Ultra X7 368H scores 40,518 as its average benchmark score, with a percentile of 87 among all CPUs. In PassMark sub-tests, it records 312,927 in data compression, 25,228 in data encryption, 25,669 in extended instructions, 321 in find prime numbers, 105,681 in floating point math, 88,083 in integer math, 32,956 in multithread, 2,857 in physics, 38,093 in random string sorting, and 4,005 in single-thread tests.

The data shows no head-to-head benchmark entries between these two specific processors, and the Core 3 201TE has zero recorded wins while the Ultra X7 368H also has zero recorded wins in the head-to-head table. The absence of benchmark data for the Core 3 201TE means its performance can only be inferred from its specifications: 4 cores, 8 threads, a 4.60 GHz boost clock, and a 50th percentile standing. The Ultra X7 368H's 87th percentile and average score of 40,518 place it well above the median, while the Core 3 201TE sits exactly at the median. The benchmark results indicate that the Ultra X7 368H delivers competitive performance against the four nearest rivals listed, with all delta percentages within 0.2%, making it a tightly grouped contender in its performance class.