OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£140PassMark benchmark result:26244N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.9 GHzCPU socket:LGA1851TDP (Thermal design power):57 W

Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.0

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 87% of models
Score components

90%

8.0

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–²Better than 87% of processors
8.0

Technical score

Technical score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 87% of models
Score components

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

8.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.6

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated Graphics

â–²Better than 87% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £140

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 3 205

Technical score
Technical score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 87% of models
Score components:

60%

7.7

Performance

18%

8.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.6

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated Graphics

8.0
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

8.0

Overall score

40%

9.8

Price

8.5
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1851
CPU socket
LGA1851
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor uses the LGA1851 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
Chipset
Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880
★ Better than 90% of models
This processor supports Z890, B860, H810, Q870, W880 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 90.3% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
N. of physical cores
8
â–² Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.9 GHz
â–² Better than 76% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.9 GHz which is higher than that of 75.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz & 4x 3.2 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz & 4x 3.2 GHz
â–² Better than 82% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.8 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 81.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Semiconductor size
3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
L3 cache
15 MB
L3 cache
15 MB
â–² Better than 64% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 15 MB which is larger than that of 63.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
L2 cache
16 MB
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 89.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR5
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
â–² Better than 84% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-6400 MHz
â–² Better than 88% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 87.5% of processors and equal to 2.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 83.4% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU
â–² Better than 84% of models
This processor uses the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 84% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
2
Integrated GPU execution units
2
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 2 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 95.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.6% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
57 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
57 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 57 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
57 W
Base power (PL1)
57 W
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 57 W which is higher than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
76 W
Boost power (PL2)
76 W
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 76 W which is higher than that of 58.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 3 205 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 83.4% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,586
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,586 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,586 vs 2,500
  • 2.48x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,244
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,244 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,244 vs 10,572.5
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.06x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,935
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,935 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,935 vs 4,829
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    3 MB/core
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • 29.8% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has better value for money than the average processor (8.52 vs 6.6).
    8.52 vs 6.56
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    LGA1851
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1851 vs FP4).
    LGA1851 vs FP4
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    August 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 83.4% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,586
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,586 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,586 vs 2,500
  • 2.48x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    26,244
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,244 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,244 vs 10,572.5
  • 2.06x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    9,935
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,935 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,935 vs 4,829
  • 14% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.9 GHz
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 3.8 GHz & 4 x 3.2 GHz
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x3.8 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x3.8 GHz & 4x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    38
    â–² Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    3 MB/core
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3.6x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    17.8 billion
    â–² Better than 79% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    17.8 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 87.5% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    15 MB
    â–² Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (15 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    15 MB vs 8 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 2.24x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    102.4 GB/s
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 3x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    192 GB
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.18x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    6,400 MHz
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR5-6400 MHz
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 37.3% larger die size
    Die size
    243 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 26.7% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    57 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (57 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    57 W vs 45 W
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-VNNI, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2, ABM, ADX, AES, SM3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 37.3% larger die size
    Die size
    243 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (243 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    243 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16, x8/x8
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 91.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (2 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    2 vs 24
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 26.7% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    57 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (57 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    57 W vs 45 W
  • 26.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    76 W
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (76 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    76 W vs 60 W
  • 26.7% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    57 W
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (57 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    57 W vs 45 W

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

igorslab.de
16/09/2025
Lab test · Budget Arrow Lake chip
Verdict
The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is a budget chip that suits office PCs and casual gaming, but it struggles with demanding AAA games at high settings.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 3 205

  • Significant multi-threaded performance gains (up to 48%) compared to its predecessor, the Core i3-14100.
  • Impressive integrated graphics performance with a 75% uplift in benchmarks over the previous generation.
  • High single-core boost clock of up to 4.9 GHz, providing a responsive experience for everyday tasks.
  • Capable of handling 8K YouTube playback and smooth light gaming in titles like Valorant and DOTA.
  • Most affordable entry point for the new LGA 1851 socket and DDR5 platform.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 3 205

  • Limited availability for DIY builders, as it appears to be primarily an OEM/tray product for pre-built systems.
  • Lack of Hyper-Threading, resulting in only 8 threads for its 8-core (4P+4E) configuration.
  • Stock cooling may be insufficient; reviewers recommend a third-party cooler for optimal thermal performance.
  • High CPU utilization (nearly 90%) in demanding, modern games like Cyberpunk 2077.
  • Poor value proposition in some regions where older mid-range chips (like Core i5-13400) or competing Ryzen 5 CPUs offer better performance for the price.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is an entry-level desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake-S architecture, utilizing a hybrid 4P+4E core configuration that provides 8 physical cores and 8 threads with no hyper-threading support. It features a base clock of 3.8 GHz for performance cores (boosting up to 4.9 GHz), a 15 MB L3 cache, and a power-efficient 57W base TDP. Main pros include a significant performance leap over previous-generation i3 models, integrated Xe-LPG graphics with 2 Xe-cores capable of basic eSports gaming, and an on-board NPU for AI acceleration. Primary cons involve limited multi-threaded performance compared to higher-tier models, the requirement for the new LGA 1851 socket and DDR5 memory, and a lack of official standalone retail availability in many regions.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 3 205 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 3 205 and other processors

No results found