Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H and the Intel Core 3 201TE sit at opposite ends of Intel’s current desktop and mobile lineup, and the recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between them. The Core Ultra X9 378H delivers an average benchmark score of 47,468, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201TE, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile, a figure driven by the absence of any recorded benchmark results for that part.

The only available benchmark data belongs to the Core Ultra X9 378H, and the numbers are substantial. In Cinebench R23, the X9 378H scores 32,553 in multi-core and 4,595 in single-core. That single-core figure is particularly strong, reflecting a 5.00 GHz boost clock, the highest boost frequency recorded for either processor. In Cinebench R20, the X9 378H posts 13,672 multi-core and 1,929 single-core. Cinebench R15 shows 3,281 multi-core and 462 single-core, indicating scaling that holds up across successive versions of the render test.

PassMark results for the X9 378H reinforce the picture. The processor scores 38,298 in multithread, 4,453 in single-thread, and 4,453 in singlethread, the latter two being duplicate entries for the same test. In specialized workloads, the X9 378H achieves 114,500 in floating point math, 92,603 in integer math, 386,591 in data compression, 29,840 in data encryption, 44,648 in random string sorting, 31,315 in extended instructions, 3,404 in physics, and 357 in find prime numbers.

Because the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark records, there are no direct head-to-head deltas to report. The database lists zero wins for either part in head-to-head comparisons. What can be stated is that the X9 378H, with 16 cores and 16 threads, outnumbers the 201TE’s 4 cores and 8 threads by a factor of four in core count and two in thread count. The X9 378H also boosts 0.40 GHz higher, reaching 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Those structural advantages translate into the recorded scores, but the 201TE’s lack of measured results prevents a numeric comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H wins in every measured category, simply because it is the only part with recorded benchmark data. Its multi-core strength is evident in Cinebench R23’s 32,553 score, which aligns with its 16-core, 16-thread configuration. The X9 378H also leads in single-core performance, with a 4,595 Cinebench R23 single-core score that benefits from the 5.00 GHz boost clock. For workloads that stress floating point arithmetic, such as scientific simulations or financial modeling, the 114,500 PassMark floating point score indicates robust throughput. Integer-heavy tasks, like database operations or compression, also favor the X9 378H, as shown by the 92,603 integer math score and the 386,591 data compression score.

The Core 3 201TE, while lacking benchmark scores, has characteristics that define its intended role. It is a desktop processor with a 45 W TDP, a higher power envelope than the X9 378H’s 25 W, and it supports ECC memory, a feature the X9 378H does not offer. The 201TE also uses DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the X9 378H is limited to LPDDR5X. For users requiring error-correcting memory in a desktop build, the 201TE holds an advantage in that specific capability. Its 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is half the X9 378H’s 153.6 GB/s, but the 201TE’s support for two memory standards provides flexibility that the mobile-focused X9 378H lacks.

The X9 378H, as a mobile part with a 25 W TDP, is designed for power-constrained environments. Its 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, paired with LPDDR5X support, suggests a focus on bandwidth-sensitive tasks in thin-and-light systems. The 201TE, with its 45 W TDP and desktop socket, targets stationary builds where power efficiency is less critical.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct generations and design philosophies. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, built on a 10 nm process node. Its die size is 163 mm², and it fits the Intel Socket 1700. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) generation, and is built on a 3 nm process node. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket, a mobile package. The process node difference is stark: 10 nm versus 3 nm, with the latter allowing for higher transistor density, though the database does not list transistor counts for either part.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 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 X9 378H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Per-core L1 and L2 capacities are larger on the X9 378H, and its total L3 cache exceeds the 201TE’s by 6 MB. These differences compound with the core count disparity: the 201TE’s 4 cores share 12 MB of L3, while the X9 378H’s 16 cores share 18 MB, giving each X9 378H core less L3 on average but more total capacity for the entire chip.

Memory support diverges completely. The 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC capability. The X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. The X9 378H’s memory bandwidth is exactly double the 201TE’s, a significant advantage for memory-intensive workloads. PCIe lanes also differ: the 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the X9 378H provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The 201TE’s 16 lanes suit a desktop with discrete GPUs or storage expansion, while the X9 378H’s 4 lanes reflect a mobile part where the CPU does not drive extensive expansion.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the X9 378H uses Arc B390. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either GPU, but the Arc branding indicates a higher-tier graphics solution within Intel’s lineup. The 201TE launches with a $134 MSRP, while the X9 378H has no recorded launch MSRP. The 201TE’s release date is 2025-01-12, and the X9 378H’s release date is 2026-04-03, making the X9 378H a later product by over a year.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H 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 X9 378H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, a difference of 0.40 GHz in favor of the X9 378H.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H does not.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5. The X9 378H supports only LPDDR5X.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The X9 378H has 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is exactly double the 201TE’s 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The 201TE is built on a 10 nm process node. The X9 378H is built on a 3 nm process node.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core Ultra X9 378H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-04-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | SRPKDQ5CK | unknown |