AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core 3 201TE Comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 40 and Intel Core 3 201TE are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, but they target different segments and show distinct performance profiles in the recorded data. The Ryzen 5 40 has a full suite of benchmark results, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded scores in the database, which limits direct comparison but still allows for analysis based on specifications and the Ryzen part’s measured performance against other CPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen 5 40 and the Intel Core 3 201TE. The Ryzen 5 40 has 15 recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark tests, while the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries. This means any comparison of measured performance must rely on the Ryzen 5 40’s absolute scores and its position relative to other CPUs in the database, rather than a direct matchup.

Looking at the Ryzen 5 40’s multi-core results, the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 4841 points places it in a modest range for a 4-core part. The Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 790 points follows a similar pattern. Single-core performance shows a Cinebench R23 score of 1150 points and a Cinebench R15 score of 165.5 points. These figures indicate that the Ryzen 5 40 delivers balanced scaling between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, with the multi-core advantage being roughly 4.2 times the single-core score in R23, which aligns with the 4-core, 8-thread configuration.

In Passmark tests, the Ryzen 5 40 shows its strongest results in integer math with a score of 31598, floating point math at 15194, and multithread at 9341. The data compression test records 141533, while random string sorting reaches 15124. The extended instructions test scores 6437, and data encryption records 6646. The find prime numbers test returns 20, which is notably lower than other integer-related workloads. Single-thread performance in Passmark is 2477 points, and physics scores 432.

The Ryzen 5 40’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 15882. Its percentile versus all CPUs in the database is 70, meaning it outperforms 70 percent of all recorded processors. The nearest rivals in the database are AMD EPYC 75F3 with an average score of 15859 and a delta of 0.1 percent, Intel Core Ultra 5 134U at 15910 with a delta of -0.2 percent, AMD EPYC 9354P at 15826 with a delta of 0.4 percent, and AMD EPYC 9334 at 15940 with a delta of -0.4 percent. These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the Ryzen 5 40’s overall performance is tightly clustered with these very different CPUs, which range from server EPYC parts to a mobile Core Ultra. The Ryzen 5 40 essentially matches the average performance of these rivals, with the largest gap being 0.4 percent ahead of the EPYC 9354P and 0.4 percent behind the EPYC 9334.

Since the Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark scores, its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile versus all CPUs is 50. The database does not assign it any nearest rivals because there are no measured results to compare. This means the head-to-head comparison is one-sided: all recorded performance data belongs to the AMD part, and the Intel part’s actual performance is unmeasured in this database.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows that the AMD Ryzen 5 40 is the only one of these two processors with any recorded benchmark performance. Its scores place it in the 70th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 15882 that sits within 0.4 percent of several EPYC server processors and a Core Ultra mobile chip. For workloads that rely on the measured Passmark and Cinebench tests, the Ryzen 5 40 delivers known, quantified results.

The Intel Core 3 201TE, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks, so its performance cannot be assessed from the database. Its percentile of 50 is a placeholder default rather than a measured result. Anyone choosing between these two based on the recorded data would have to select the Ryzen 5 40 because it has verifiable scores, while the Core 3 201TE offers no measured evidence of performance.

However, the Core 3 201TE does have specification advantages that may matter for certain use cases. It supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 5 40 does not. It has a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, and a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. It also has significantly more L3 cache at 12 MB shared versus 4 MB shared, and larger L2 cache at 1.25 MB per core versus 512 KB per core. The Core 3 201TE also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Ryzen 5 40 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes. These are meaningful architectural differences, but without benchmark data, their real-world impact remains unquantified.

For the Ryzen 5 40, the recorded data shows a processor that competes closely with much higher-tier server parts in average score. Its 6 nm process node from TSMC is smaller than the Intel part’s 10 nm node, and its die size is 100 mm² versus 163 mm². The Ryzen 5 40 also has a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 45 watts, making it far more power-efficient on paper. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 88.0 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, despite both using dual-channel memory. The Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory while the Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Ryzen 5 40 is the only option with measured performance, and that performance is solidly average among all CPUs, with strong proximity to server-class EPYC parts. The Core 3 201TE offers specification-based advantages in cache, PCIe lanes, clock speeds, and ECC support, but none of these are backed by benchmark scores in the database.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201TE have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 201TE has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile of 50, which appears to be a default value rather than a measured result.

Q: What is the AMD Ryzen 5 40’s best multi-core score?

A: The highest recorded multi-core score for the Ryzen 5 40 is 4841 in Cinebench R23 multicore, with a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 790.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 40 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 40’s average benchmark score of 15882 is within 0.4 percent of four rivals: AMD EPYC 75F3 (15859, +0.1 percent), Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (15910, -0.2 percent), AMD EPYC 9354P (15826, +0.4 percent), and AMD EPYC 9334 (15940, -0.4 percent).

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory, while the Intel Core 3 201TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 40’s boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 3 201TE has ECC memory support listed as true, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 has ECC memory support listed as false.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The TDP is drastically different: the Ryzen 5 40 is rated at 15 watts, while the Core 3 201TE is rated at 45 watts.

The sockets are different: the Ryzen 5 40 uses AMD Socket FT6, while the Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700. The process nodes differ as well, with the Ryzen 5 40 fabricated on a 6 nm node by TSMC, and the Core 3 201TE fabricated on a 10 nm node by Intel. The die sizes are 100 mm² for the AMD part and 163 mm² for the Intel part.

Memory support differs: the Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5, while the Core 3 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the AMD part at 88.0 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s on the Intel part. ECC memory support is present on the Intel part but absent on the AMD part.

PCIe capabilities are also different: the Ryzen 5 40 has PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 201TE has PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Radeon 610M on the AMD part and UHD Graphics 730 on the Intel part. The market segment is mobile for the Ryzen 5 40 and desktop for the Core 3 201TE.

The release dates differ: the Ryzen 5 40 was released on 2025-09-30, while the Core 3 201TE was released on 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $134, which is stated once here as required. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. The part numbers also differ, with the Intel part having part number SRPKDQ5CK and the AMD part listed as unknown.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is significant. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Mendocino codename, fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a 10 nm process from Intel. The generation labels are "Ryzen 5 (Zen 2 (Mendocino))" for AMD and "Core 3 (Bartlett Lake)" for Intel.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Ryzen 5 40 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. 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. This gives the Intel part a 3x advantage in L3 cache capacity and a 2.4x advantage in L2 cache per core.

Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, but the underlying implementations are different. The Ryzen 5 40 is built on AMD’s Zen 2 architecture, which uses a chiplet design philosophy adapted for a mobile APU. The Core 3 201TE is based on Intel’s Bartlett Lake, which appears to be a desktop-oriented design given its Socket 1700 and 45 watt TDP.

The memory controllers differ in supported types and bandwidth. The AMD part supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part’s higher bandwidth figure is notable despite using a lower-power mobile platform.

PCIe capabilities are also architecturally distinct. The Ryzen 5 40 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes, which is typical for a low-power mobile processor. The Core 3 201TE offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, which is a desktop-class expansion capability. This difference reflects the intended use cases: the Ryzen 5 40 for thin-and-light laptops, and the Core 3 201TE for desktop systems with discrete GPUs or other expansion cards.

The integrated graphics differ as well, with Radeon 610M on the AMD side and UHD Graphics 730 on the Intel side. The AMD part uses its own RDNA-based integrated GPU, while the Intel part uses its UHD Graphics architecture. Neither has 3D V-Cache, and both have locked multipliers (multiplierUnlocked is false for both).

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 5 40 wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only one with any benchmark scores. Its 15 recorded scores cover multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, plus a range of Passmark workloads including integer math, floating point math, multithread, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, random string sorting, physics, and single-thread tests. The Ryzen 5 40’s average benchmark score of 15882 and 70th percentile ranking give it a clear measured performance profile.

The Intel Core 3 201TE wins on specification-based attributes that are not measured in the database. It has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.80 GHz), a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 4.30 GHz), more L3 cache (12 MB vs 4 MB), more L2 cache per core (1.25 MB vs 512 KB), PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus Gen 3 with 4 lanes, ECC memory support, and a larger die size (163 mm² vs 100 mm²). These specifications suggest that the Core 3 201TE is designed for desktop workloads that may benefit from more cache and higher clock speeds, but the database contains no evidence of how these specifications translate into actual performance.

The Ryzen 5 40 wins on power efficiency in the recorded specifications, with a 15 watt TDP versus 45 watts for the Intel part. It also has higher memory bandwidth at 88.0 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, and a smaller process node at 6 nm versus 10 nm. Its mobile market segment and lower TDP make it suitable for battery-powered systems, while the Intel part’s desktop segment and higher TDP point toward plug-in systems.

For use-case selection, the data suggests that the Ryzen 5 40 is the choice when measured performance matters, as it has a full set of benchmark results. The Core 3 201TE is the choice when specific unmeasured features are required, such as ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 expansion, or higher clock speeds. However, without benchmark data for the Intel part, any performance advantage it might have remains speculative. The database’s recorded information only supports the Ryzen 5 40 as having verified performance, while the Core 3 201TE’s performance is entirely unquantified.