AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 vs Intel Core 3 201E Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 and Intel Core 3 201E occupy different corners of the processor market, one a 28-watt mobile part built for thin laptops, the other a 60-watt desktop chip aimed at compact and entry-level PCs. Despite their differing platforms, they collide in benchmark results, where the AMD part wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, while the Intel chip takes 2. The data shows a clear split: the Ryzen AI 5 340 dominates in most raw compute workloads, but the Core 3 201E counters in specific rendering and physics tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 is the decisive winner in the vast majority of measured workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1915 against the Intel chip’s 1271, a 50.7% lead. Single-core performance in the same test shows a 35.5% advantage, with scores of 242.6 versus 179. The AMD part also leads in PassMark integer math by 43.7%, scoring 63078 against 43894, and in extended instructions by 49%, with 16440 versus 11035. Data compression favors AMD even more, with a 40% delta (229796 versus 164160), while random string sorting shows a 40.4% edge (24970 versus 17783). Encryption, floating-point math, and prime number finding all go to AMD, with deltas of 28.4%, 20.2%, and 26.3% respectively. The PassMark multi-thread score confirms the pattern: 19506 versus 14839, a 31.5% gap.

The Intel Core 3 201E takes two wins, but they are notable. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it edges out the AMD part with a score of 12613 versus 12532, a slim 0.6% margin. It also wins PassMark physics, scoring 1141 against 1095, a 4% lead. These results suggest the Intel chip can hold its own in sustained all-core rendering and physics simulation, despite losing nearly everywhere else. The Cinebench R23 result is particularly interesting because it reverses the R15 multi-core outcome, where AMD led by 50.7%. The delta between the two tests indicates different scaling behavior under longer workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 uses Zen 5 architecture with the Krackan Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation that mixes Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm Intel process, and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The process node difference is stark: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which helps explain the AMD part’s efficiency and thermal characteristics.

Core counts differ significantly. The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel chip has 4 cores and 8 threads. That two-core, four-thread advantage drives many of the multi-threaded wins. Cache configurations also diverge. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, a larger 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB of L3. The Intel chip’s larger L3 cache may contribute to its Cinebench R23 multi-core win, despite having fewer cores. The AMD die measures 195 mm², while the Intel die is smaller at 163 mm².

Memory support separates the two as well. The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel chip supports DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a lower bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The AMD part does not support ECC memory, while the Intel part does. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with the AMD part featuring Radeon 840M and the Intel part using UHD Graphics 730.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The AMD chip has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel chip has a much higher base clock of 3.60 GHz but the same 4.80 GHz boost. The Intel part’s higher base clock does not translate into single-core wins, as the AMD part leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 7.6% (1915.5 versus 1780) and in PassMark single-thread by 5.8% (3683 versus 3482). The AMD chip’s 28-watt TDP is less than half the Intel chip’s 60-watt TDP, yet it delivers higher performance in most tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 as the stronger processor for almost all compute-heavy tasks. It wins integer math, floating-point math, encryption, compression, sorting, and extended instruction workloads by margins ranging from 20.2% to 50.7%. Its single-core performance is also superior, with a 7.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 5.8% lead in PassMark single-thread. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration gives it a structural advantage in multi-threaded applications, and its 4 nm process delivers this performance at a 28-watt TDP.

The Intel Core 3 201E is the choice only for specific scenarios. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core win, though narrow at 0.6%, indicates that it can match or slightly exceed the AMD part in sustained rendering workloads that stress all cores over time. Its PassMark physics win, at 4% ahead, suggests an edge in physics simulation. The Intel chip also supports ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5, which may matter for certain workstation or server-like use cases. Its 60-watt TDP and desktop Socket 1700 platform position it as a different class of product, but the data does not show a performance advantage beyond those two tests.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The AMD part holds a 78th percentile ranking among all CPUs with an average score of 25981, while the Intel part sits at the 73rd percentile with an average score of 19056. The AMD chip’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14701TE at a 0.1% lower average score and the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS at a 0.5% lower score, placing it in solid company. The Intel chip’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at a 0% delta and the Intel Core i5-12400F at a 0.1% higher score, indicating it performs on par with established mid-range parts.

For users who prioritize raw compute, multi-threaded throughput, and single-core responsiveness, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 is the clear pick. For those who need ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5, or a specific edge in physics and long-form rendering, the Intel Core 3 201E has a narrow but real place. The data does not support a broader recommendation for the Intel part beyond those conditions.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E wins 2.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 scores 1915 against the Intel Core 3 201E’s 1271, a 50.7% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201E win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 12613 versus 12532, a 0.6% margin, and PassMark physics with 1141 versus 1095, a 4% margin.

Q: How do core counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 has a 28-watt TDP, while the Intel Core 3 201E has a 60-watt TDP.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test delivers the most dramatic result. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 posts 1915 points, which is 50.7% ahead of the Intel Core 3 201E’s 1271. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and reflects the AMD part’s two-core advantage in a workload that scales well with thread count. The single-core version of the same test shows a 35.5% lead for AMD, with 242.6 against 179, indicating that the AMD architecture is faster per thread as well.

The Cinebench R23 results tell a more nuanced story. In multi-core, the Intel Core 3 201E scores 12613, narrowly beating the AMD chip’s 12532 by 0.6%. This is the only multi-threaded benchmark the Intel part wins, and it suggests that the longer R23 workload interacts differently with the Intel chip’s 12 MB shared L3 cache and higher base clock. In single-core R23, however, AMD wins by 7.6%, scoring 1915.5 against 1780, confirming that the Intel chip’s R23 multi-core victory is an exception rather than a pattern.

PassMark workloads overwhelmingly favor the AMD part. Integer math shows a 43.7% lead, with scores of 63078 versus 43894. Floating-point math follows with a 20.2% edge, 39967 versus 33260. Extended instructions produce a 49% delta, 16440 versus 11035. Data compression and encryption show 40% and 28.4% leads respectively, with scores of 229796 versus 164160 and 11470 versus 8931. Random string sorting adds a 40.4% margin, 24970 versus 17783. The PassMark multi-thread score of 19506 versus 14839 represents a 31.5% gap, while single-thread shows a smaller 5.8% lead, 3683 versus 3482.

The Intel Core 3 201E’s PassMark physics win is modest at 4%, with a score of 1141 against 1095. This test measures a specialized workload that appears to favor the Intel chip’s architecture, but it is an isolated result. The overall PassMark suite, along with Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, puts the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 firmly ahead in aggregate performance. The data supports a conclusion that the AMD part is the faster processor in almost every measurable category, with only narrow exceptions in specific rendering and physics scenarios.