Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core 3 201E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is heavily one-sided. The Intel Core 3 100HL wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E takes only 2. The 100HL dominates in nearly every category that stresses throughput, including Cinebench multi-core, PassMark integer math, floating-point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. Its wins are not narrow either. In data encryption, the 100HL leads by 34%, and in random string sorting it is 30.6% ahead. These are decisive margins, not statistical noise.

The 201E wins in exactly two areas: PassMark find prime numbers (57 vs 48, a 15.8% advantage) and PassMark physics (1141 vs 928, an 18.7% advantage). The physics result is notable because it is the single largest victory for either chip in percentage terms. The prime number test, however, is a narrow workload that does not reflect general compute behavior. The 201E also wins neither Cinebench single-core nor PassMark single-thread, which contradicts what one might expect from a chip with a higher boost clock. The 100HL takes PassMark single-thread by 7.3% (3735 vs 3482) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 18.5% (2110 vs 1780).

For users who prioritize multi-threaded rendering, compression, encryption, or general integer and floating-point workloads, the 100HL is the clear choice. The 201E only shows an edge in physics simulation and prime-number finding, which are specialized tasks. The data indicates that the 100HL is the more versatile processor for typical desktop workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Intel Socket 1700, the same 10 nm process node, and the same Intel foundry. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and both have 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The similarities end there.

The 100HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, while the 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with no architecture field specified. The core counts differ substantially: the 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, whereas the 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. That core advantage explains much of the 100HL's multi-threaded dominance. The L2 cache differs as well. The 100HL has 2 MB per core, while the 201E has 1.25 MB per core. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core.

Clock speeds favor the 201E. Its base clock is 3.60 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz for the 100HL, and its boost clock is 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. Despite the higher clocks, the 201E loses in nearly every benchmark, which shows that core count and cache capacity matter more than raw frequency in these tests. The 201E also has a higher TDP at 60 watts versus 45 watts for the 100HL, and its die size is listed at 163 mm², a figure not provided for the 100HL.

Memory bandwidth is listed only for the 201E at 76.8 GB/s. The 100HL's bandwidth is not specified in the database. The 201E supports ECC memory, while the 100HL does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 100HL uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 201E uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ, with the 100HL featuring Iris Xe Graphics 48EU and the 201E using UHD Graphics 730.

The 100HL was released on April 7, 2024, while the 201E came later on January 12, 2025. Both are active desktop processors with locked multipliers. The 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the 100HL has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. Across R15, R20, and R23, the 100HL wins every multi-core and single-core test by margins between 18.4% and 18.6%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 100HL scores 14948 versus 12613 for the 201E, an 18.5% gap. In R23 single-core, the 100HL scores 2110 versus 1780, also 18.5%. The uniformity of these deltas suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark integer math shows a 28.3% lead for the 100HL (56308 vs 43894). Floating-point math follows with a 26.6% gap (42108 vs 33260). Data compression is 23.2% higher for the 100HL (202225 vs 164160). Data encryption is the largest PassMark gap at 34% (11964 vs 8931). Random string sorting goes to the 100HL by 30.6% (23223 vs 17783). Extended instructions are closer, with the 100HL ahead by 12.9% (12463 vs 11035). PassMark multithread shows an 18.5% advantage for the 100HL (17586 vs 14839), matching the Cinebench multi-core pattern.

The two 201E wins are isolated. PassMark find prime numbers favors the 201E by 15.8% (57 vs 48), and PassMark physics favors it by 18.7% (1141 vs 928). These are the only tests where the 201E's higher base and boost clocks translate into a win. The physics result is intriguing because it is the largest margin in either direction, yet it does not carry over to other compute benchmarks.

PassMark single-thread is closer than the Cinebench single-core results. The 100HL leads by 7.3% (3735 vs 3482), which is far smaller than the 18.5% gap seen in Cinebench R23 single-core. This discrepancy suggests that the 100HL's advantage in single-threaded work is workload-dependent, with Cinebench favoring the 8-core design more than PassMark does.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E wins 2.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark data encryption, where the 100HL leads by 34% (11964 vs 8931).

Q: Does the 201E win any multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: The 201E wins PassMark physics (1141 vs 928, an 18.7% advantage) and PassMark find prime numbers (57 vs 48, a 15.8% advantage). It does not win any Cinebench multi-core test.

Q: How do the core counts differ?

A: The 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The 201E has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 4.60 GHz for the 100HL. The base clock is 3.60 GHz for the 201E and 2.10 GHz for the 100HL.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, only the 201E supports ECC memory. The 100HL does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 100HL has an average benchmark score of 23545, while the 201E has an average of 19056. The 100HL sits at the 76th percentile of all CPUs, and the 201E sits at the 73rd.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the Intel Core 3 100HL as the stronger processor for most workloads. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests, all PassMark math tests, compression, encryption, and multithread. Its 8-core, 12-thread configuration with 2 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3 provides a consistent throughput advantage over the 201E's 4-core, 8-thread design with 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The average benchmark score of 23545 versus 19056 reflects a 23.5% overall gap, and the percentile ranking (76th vs 73rd) confirms the 100HL's higher standing among all CPUs.

The 201E is not without justification. It supports ECC memory, uses Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes, has a higher base and boost clock, and wins the physics and prime-number tests. Its 60-watt TDP and 163 mm² die size indicate a different design priority. For users who need ECC memory, Gen 5 connectivity, or maximum physics simulation performance, the 201E has a specific role. Its launch MSRP is $134, which may appeal to certain buyers, though pricing is not the focus of this analysis.

For general desktop computing, rendering, compression, encryption, and math-heavy tasks, the 100HL is the pick. The data shows no scenario outside physics and prime-number finding where the 201E matches the 100HL. The 100HL's single-thread advantage in Cinebench R23 (18.5%) and PassMark single-thread (7.3%) also makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications, despite the 201E's higher clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following fields:

• Cores: 8 (100HL) vs 4 (201E)
• Threads: 12 (100HL) vs 8 (201E)
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz (100HL) vs 3.60 GHz (201E)
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz (100HL) vs 4.80 GHz (201E)
• TDP: 45 watts (100HL) vs 60 watts (201E)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-PS (100HL) vs Bartlett Lake (201E)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (100HL) vs not specified (201E)
• Die size: not specified (100HL) vs 163 mm² (201E)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (100HL) vs 1.25 MB per core (201E)
• Memory bandwidth: not specified (100HL) vs 76.8 GB/s (201E)
• ECC memory: false (100HL) vs true (201E)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes (100HL) vs Gen 5, 16 lanes (201E)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe Graphics 48EU (100HL) vs UHD Graphics 730 (201E)
• Release date: 2024-04-07 (100HL) vs 2025-01-12 (201E)
• Part number: unknown (100HL) vs SRVTR (201E)

Shared specifications include Intel Socket 1700, 10 nm process node, Intel foundry, 80 KB L1 cache per core, 12 MB shared L3 cache, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, Desktop market segment, Active production status, and locked multipliers.