Intel Core Ultra 3 205 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 and Intel Processor N150 occupy completely different tiers of the desktop and mobile processor markets, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop part aimed at mainstream performance, while the N150 is a low-power mobile chip designed for efficiency-first systems. Across every recorded benchmark, the Core Ultra 3 205 wins, and in several tests, the margin is enormous. The data shows a processor that delivers multiple times the throughput of its rival, which makes the comparison less about close competition and more about understanding where each part fits.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided, with the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 winning all four recorded comparisons. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 19856 against the N150's 2590.5, a delta of 666.5%. This is not a marginal lead; it represents a fundamental difference in multi-threaded workload capability. The Core Ultra 3 205 delivers roughly eight times the multi-core performance of the N150 in this test, which directly translates to faster rendering, compilation, and other parallel tasks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 2001 versus 422.5 for the N150, a 373.6% advantage. This test is older but still relevant for comparing raw CPU throughput, and the pattern holds. The single-core results are closer, but the Core Ultra 3 205 still dominates. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2803 against 935, a 199.8% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 282 versus 153.15, an 84.1% advantage. Even in the most favorable test for the N150, the Core Ultra 3 205 is nearly double the score.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core Ultra 3 205 sits at 31473, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The N150 has an average score of 1025, which puts it in the 28th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 3 205 include the Intel Core 7 240H with an average score of 31483 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31495 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31508 (-0.1%). The N150's nearest rivals are much older or lower-end parts, such as the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T at 1024 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026 (-0.1%). The delta percentages confirm that the Core Ultra 3 205 competes with modern mid-range and high-end laptop chips, while the N150 trades blows with decade-old desktop processors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture on Intel's 10 nm process. The Core Ultra 3 205 packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; the N150's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. This process advantage alone explains much of the performance difference, as the smaller node allows for significantly higher clock speeds and better efficiency.

Core counts differ as well. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither part uses hyper-threading, so thread counts match core counts. The cache hierarchy is also different. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 3 205's larger per-core L2 and much larger L3 cache give it a significant advantage in workloads that repeatedly access the same data.

Clock speeds favor the Core Ultra 3 205 as well. It has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The N150 has a base clock of 0.10 GHz, which is unusually low, and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Core Ultra 3 205's boost clock is over 1 GHz higher, and its base clock is dramatically higher. This translates directly to faster single-threaded execution, as seen in the single-core benchmark results.

Memory support and bandwidth also differ sharply. The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only in single-channel mode, with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. This is a 2.7x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which affects every workload that depends on feeding data to the CPU cores. The PCIe interface is also different: the Core Ultra 3 205 uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the N150 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Core Ultra 3 205 far more suitable for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Core Ultra 3 205 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, while the N150 includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1851 with a TDP of 57 watts, while the N150 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1264 with a TDP of 6 watts. The N150's extremely low power draw is its primary architectural advantage, but it comes at a steep cost to performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins in every category measured. The multi-core Cinebench results show a massive lead, indicating that the Core Ultra 3 205 is the clear choice for threaded workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and software compilation. The 666.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core is not a small edge; it is a difference between a system that completes a render in minutes versus one that takes hours. The single-core results also favor the Core Ultra 3 205, with a 199.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This means even lightly threaded applications, such as web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software, will run noticeably faster on the Core Ultra 3 205.

The Intel Processor N150 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strengths lie outside the recorded performance metrics. Its 6-watt TDP makes it suitable for passively cooled or fanless designs where power consumption is the primary constraint. Its support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 gives system designers flexibility in memory selection, though the single-channel bus limits bandwidth. The N150's mobile form factor on Intel BGA 1264 means it can be soldered directly into compact motherboards for mini PCs, thin clients, or embedded systems. For workloads that require minimal power draw and generate negligible heat, the N150 is a valid option, but the database shows no performance scenario where it outpaces the Core Ultra 3 205.

The Core Ultra 3 205's position in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, alongside rivals like the Intel Core 7 240H and AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX, indicates that it belongs in a different performance class entirely. The N150's 28th percentile placement, competing with parts like the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340, confirms that it is a low-end chip by modern standards. For any user who needs CPU throughput, the Core Ultra 3 205 is the only choice from this pair.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is a mainstream desktop processor that delivers competitive performance against modern mid-range and high-end laptop chips. Its 8 cores, 4.90 GHz boost clock, 15 MB of L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it suitable for a wide range of tasks, from gaming with a discrete GPU to productivity and content creation. Its 57-watt TDP is reasonable for a desktop part, and its Gen 5 PCIe support allows for high-speed storage and graphics. The launch MSRP is $140, which places it as a value-oriented desktop option.

The Intel Processor N150 is a low-power mobile chip designed for efficiency above all else. Its 6-watt TDP, 4 cores, and 3.60 GHz boost clock are sufficient for basic tasks like web browsing, document editing, and media playback, but the benchmark results show it is not competitive for any demanding workload. The 28th percentile ranking and average score of 1025 place it in the same league as processors from a decade ago. The N150 is appropriate for systems where power draw and heat dissipation are critical, such as fanless mini PCs or battery-powered devices, but it cannot serve as a primary workhorse.

For a desktop user building a system that needs real compute capability, the Core Ultra 3 205 is the obvious pick. For a system integrator targeting ultra-low-power mobile devices, the N150 has a place. The two parts are not competitors; they serve different market segments, and the benchmarks confirm that the Core Ultra 3 205 is the superior processor by every measured metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 19856 versus 2590.5 for the Intel Processor N150, a 666.5% lead.

Q: How much better is the single-core performance of the Core Ultra 3 205?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 2803 against 935, a 199.8% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the lead is 84.1%, with scores of 282 versus 153.15.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither supports hyper-threading.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3. The N150 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 in single-channel mode.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The Core Ultra 3 205 is in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The N150 is in the 28th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 3 205 | Intel Processor N150 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 57 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Twin Lake |

| Process Node | 3 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-07-31 | 2024-11-19 |

| Launch MSRP | $140 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRVFC | SRPNR |