AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 vs Intel Core 3 201TE Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts compare between the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core 3 201TE?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses 12 cores with 24 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE uses 4 cores with 8 threads. This 3x core and 3x thread advantage forms the basis of the AMD part's large multi-threaded performance lead.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The Intel Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process at Intel, with a smaller die size of 163 mm².

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 does not. The Intel part also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, which is 0.50 GHz higher than the Intel Core 3 201TE's 4.60 GHz boost. The Intel part has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz compared to the AMD's 2.00 GHz.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a mobile processor using AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core 3 201TE is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part belongs to the Ryzen AI 300 generation with the Strix Point codename, and the Intel part belongs to the Core 3 generation with the Bartlett Lake codename.

Q: How do the cache hierarchies differ?

A: Both processors have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part has 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Core 3 201TE represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD processor uses the Zen 5 architecture with a hybrid design of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, part of the Strix Point codename and Ryzen AI 300 generation. It is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, which contributes to its 28 W TDP despite having 12 cores. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename from the Core 3 generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a 45 W TDP.

The core topology is the most striking architectural divergence. The AMD part deploys 12 cores and 24 threads, which is a high-count configuration for a mobile processor. The Intel part uses a conventional 4-core, 8-thread layout, which is a modest configuration for a desktop processor. This difference in core count directly influences every multi-threaded benchmark result in the database.

Cache architecture also differs in allocation and size. The AMD part has 16 MB of L3 cache as a shared pool, while the Intel part has 12 MB of shared L3. L2 cache per core is larger on the Intel part at 1.25 MB compared to 1 MB on the AMD part, but the AMD part's higher core count means its total L2 capacity is larger overall. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 includes the Radeon 890M, while the Intel Core 3 201TE includes UHD Graphics 730. These are separate GPU designs from different vendors, with the Radeon 890M being a more capable integrated solution based on its positioning in the mobile segment.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD part has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Intel part. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory is supported on the Intel part but not on the AMD part.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. This gives the Intel part a newer PCIe generation, though the AMD part's mobile orientation means the practical impact depends on the system design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins decisively in multi-threaded workloads. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration with a 5.10 GHz boost clock and 16 MB of L3 cache delivers a level of parallel performance that the Intel Core 3 201TE cannot approach. The database shows the AMD part at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 50th percentile. For applications that scale across cores such as rendering, video encoding, and scientific computing, the AMD part is the clear choice.

The Intel Core 3 201TE wins in specific desktop-centric scenarios. Its support for ECC memory makes it suitable for reliability-focused workstation or server-adjacent builds. The Intel part's support for DDR4 memory provides compatibility with existing memory ecosystems, which can be an advantage in upgrades or cost-sensitive system builds. The Intel part also has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz, which could benefit lightly threaded workloads that rely on sustained base frequency rather than boost behavior.

The AMD part's mobile market segment means it is designed for laptops and portable systems, with a 28 W TDP that suits thin-and-light designs. The Intel part's desktop market segment with a 45 W TDP indicates it is intended for stationary systems where power draw is less constrained. The AMD part's LPDDR5X memory support also points toward mobile integration where low-power memory is standard.

For single-threaded performance, the AMD part's 5.10 GHz boost clock combined with the Zen 5 architecture suggests an advantage, though the Intel part's higher base clock of 2.90 GHz could provide more consistent performance in sustained single-threaded workloads without boost headroom. The recorded benchmark scores for the AMD part show a Geekbench single-core score of 2084 and a Passmark single-thread score of 3867, which are strong results for a mobile processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Core count: 12 versus 4. Threads: 24 versus 8. Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 2.90 GHz. Boost clock: 5.10 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP: 28 W versus 45 W. Socket: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel Socket 1700. Architecture: Zen 5 versus no architecture listed for the Intel part. Codename: Strix Point versus Bartlett Lake. Generation: Ryzen AI 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) versus Core 3 (Bartlett Lake). Process node: 4 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Die size: 233 mm² versus 163 mm².

Cache specifications differ in L2 and L3. The AMD part has 1 MB of L2 per core and 16 MB of L3. The Intel part has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core.

Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for AMD versus DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory: false for AMD, true for Intel. PCIe: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics: Radeon 890M versus UHD Graphics 730. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Production status: both Active. Release date: 2024-06-30 for AMD versus 2025-01-12 for Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $134. The AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database. Multiplier unlocked: false for both. Part number: 100-000001682 for AMD versus SRPKDQ5CK for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 across multiple test suites, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores. This means direct comparisons rely on the AMD part's absolute scores and its position relative to other processors in the database.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 21812. This is a high result that places it well above typical desktop processors. The single-core score of 1988 in Cinebench R23 indicates strong per-thread performance as well. Cinebench R15 results show 3334 for multi-core and 301 for single-core.

Geekbench results for the AMD part show 13957 for multi-core and 2084 for single-core. These scores represent balanced performance across both parallel and sequential workloads. The multi-core score in particular benefits from the 24 threads available to the processor.

Passmark results for the AMD part cover several specialized workloads. The multi-thread score is 32916, and the single-thread score is 3867. Data compression scores 404918, data encryption scores 20802, and extended instructions score 29269. Floating point math scores 75153, integer math scores 121754, and prime number finding scores 122. Physics scores 1819, and random string sorting scores 44552.

The AMD part's average benchmark score is 46030, placing it at the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 with an average score of 46062, a delta of -0.1%. The AMD EPYC 4364P scores 45970, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core i9-13900HX scores 46098, a delta of -0.1%. The AMD EPYC 7303 scores 45960, a delta of 0.2%. These deltas show the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is tightly clustered with these processors, within a range of -0.1% to 0.2%. This indicates the AMD part's overall performance is statistically equivalent to a range of enterprise and high-end mobile processors, despite the massive core count difference with the Intel Core 3 201TE.

The lack of benchmark data for the Intel Core 3 201TE means the database does not support a direct numeric comparison for individual workloads. However, the Intel part's 50th percentile ranking and absent average benchmark score indicate it sits far below the AMD part in the overall performance distribution. The AMD part's 89th percentile versus the Intel part's 50th percentile represents a 39-percentile-point gap in the database's CPU ranking.