Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is extensive, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark scores in the database. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible. However, the available measurements for the Core Ultra X9 388H can be analyzed on their own merits and against its nearest rivals.

The Core Ultra X9 388H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18911 and a single-core score of 2200.5. In Cinebench R20, it records 13101 multi-core and 1849 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 2955 multi-core and 309.5 single-core. These results indicate a processor with substantial thread throughput and strong single-thread performance, a combination that typically suits both productivity and responsive desktop tasks.

PassMark results for the Core Ultra X9 388H reinforce this profile. The multi-thread score is 36811, and the single-thread score is 4280. Integer math reaches 90882, floating point math reaches 112550, and extended instructions score 29943. Data encryption hits 28490, while data compression reaches 361763. Random string sorting scores 44010, physics scores 3226, and finding prime numbers scores 358.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra X9 388H is 44466. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, posts an average score of 44573, which is only 0.2% higher. The Intel Core i9-13950HX averages 44342, a 0.3% deficit. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 averages 44309, sitting 0.4% behind. The Intel Core i5-13600 averages 44240, trailing by 0.5%. These deltas are extremely tight, placing the Core Ultra X9 388H in a performance band where minor workload differences can change the ranking order.

The Core Ultra X9 388H holds a percentile rank of 88 among all CPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms 88% of recorded processors. In contrast, the Core 3 201TE holds a percentile rank of 50, but with no benchmark scores recorded, that percentile reflects its specifications rather than measured performance. The Core Ultra X9 388H has an average benchmark score of 44466, while the Core 3 201TE has an average score of 0 due to missing benchmark data.

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the win counts are zero for both processors. The database contains no direct comparison tests between these two parts. Any analysis of relative performance must therefore rely on architectural and specification differences rather than measured head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, specifically Panther Lake-H, and is built on a 3 nm process node. The foundry for both is Intel, but the process difference is substantial: 10 nm versus 3 nm, which typically affects power efficiency and transistor density.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating hyper-threading support. The Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyper-threading. Despite having twice the cores, the Core Ultra X9 388H has the same thread count as core count, so its thread scaling relies entirely on physical cores.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Core 3 201TE has 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 X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches and bigger L3 pool on the Core Ultra X9 388H align with its higher core count and newer architecture.

Memory support diverges completely. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra X9 388H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. That is exactly double the memory bandwidth of the Core 3 201TE, a meaningful advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201TE but not on the Core Ultra X9 388H. This makes the desktop part more suitable for error-sensitive compute environments, while the mobile part omits ECC entirely.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The desktop processor offers far more direct CPU-attached PCIe lanes for expansion, while the mobile processor has a limited set.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, a modest integrated solution. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390, a much more capable graphics block, which aligns with its mobile segment where discrete GPUs may not always be present.

The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Core Ultra X9 388H uses Intel BGA 2540, a ball-grid array for mobile. The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts. The lower TDP of the mobile part is notable given its significantly higher core count and newer process node.

Clock speeds also differ. The Core 3 201TE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The mobile part starts lower but boosts higher.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active in production. The Core 3 201TE was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra X9 388H was released on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins in every measured performance category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmarks. Its multi-core scores, such as 18911 in Cinebench R23 and 36811 in PassMark multi-thread, place it in the top tier of the database, above 88% of all CPUs. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4280 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5 indicate strong responsiveness for lightly threaded applications.

The Core Ultra X9 388H also wins on memory bandwidth with 153.6 GB/s, exactly double the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 3 201TE. This benefits workloads that stream large datasets, such as compression, encryption, and scientific computing. The PassMark data compression score of 361763 and data encryption score of 28490 reflect this capability.

The Core Ultra X9 388H wins on integrated graphics with Arc B390, a far more capable GPU than the UHD Graphics 730 in the Core 3 201TE. For a mobile platform without a discrete GPU, this is a significant advantage for media playback, light rendering, and general GPU-accelerated tasks.

The Core 3 201TE wins on expansion capability. It provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, compared to only 4 lanes on the Core Ultra X9 388H. For a desktop system with multiple add-in cards, storage devices, or accelerators, the extra lanes are decisive. The Core 3 201TE also supports ECC memory, which the Core Ultra X9 388H does not, giving it an edge in reliability-focused computing environments.

The Core 3 201TE wins on platform flexibility with support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Core Ultra X9 388H is limited to LPDDR5X. The desktop part also uses a standard socket, Intel Socket 1700, allowing upgrades, while the mobile part uses a soldered BGA 2540 package. The Core 3 201TE has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, which may provide better performance in short, latency-sensitive tasks that do not boost for long.

The Core 3 201TE also has a lower percentile rank of 50, but that reflects the absence of benchmark data. In the database, the Core Ultra X9 388H is clearly the higher-performing processor in measurable terms. The Core 3 201TE is a desktop entry-level part with modest core count, while the Core Ultra X9 388H is a high-end mobile part with 16 cores and top-tier benchmark placement.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field.

The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Base clock: 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE, 2.10 GHz for the Core Ultra X9 388H. Boost clock: 4.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

TDP: 45 watts for the Core 3 201TE, 25 watts for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Socket: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 3 201TE, Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Architecture: Bartlett Lake for the Core 3 201TE, Panther Lake for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Process node: 10 nm for the Core 3 201TE, 3 nm for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Die size: 163 mm² for the Core 3 201TE, not specified for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

L1 cache: 80 KB per core for the Core 3 201TE, 192 KB per core for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core for the Core 3 201TE, 3 MB per core for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

L3 cache: 12 MB shared for the Core 3 201TE, 18 MB shared for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 for the Core 3 201TE, LPDDR5X only for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE, 153.6 GB/s for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

ECC memory: true for the Core 3 201TE, false for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes for the Core 3 201TE, Gen 5, 4 lanes for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 3 201TE, Arc B390 for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Market segment: Desktop for the Core 3 201TE, Mobile for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Release date: 2025-01-12 for the Core 3 201TE, 2026-01-04 for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Launch MSRP: $134 for the Core 3 201TE, not specified for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Part number: SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 201TE, SA4QWQ9EK for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Generation: Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) for the Core 3 201TE, Ultra X9 (Panther Lake-H) for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

Series: not specified for the Core 3 201TE, Core Ultra Series 3 for the Core Ultra X9 388H.

The Core Ultra X9 388H has a percentile rank of 88 and an average benchmark score of 44466. The Core 3 201TE has a percentile rank of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, exactly double the 76.8 GB/s of the Core 3 201TE. The Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X only.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each processor?

A: The Core Ultra X9 388H holds a percentile rank of 88 among all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201TE holds a percentile rank of 50, but it has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X9 388H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the PCIe lane counts for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra X9 388H provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra X9 388H uses Arc B390.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra X9 388H has a TDP of 25 watts.