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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 3 201E, winning 15 of the 17 direct comparisons. The Intel Core 3 100U manages only 2 wins, both in the PassMark single-thread tests, and by a razor-thin margin.

In Cinebench workloads, the Core 3 201E posts consistent wins across every render test. The multicore results show a 15.8% advantage in R15 (1271 vs 1070), R20 (5297 vs 4462), and R23 (12613 vs 10624). The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the 201E ahead by 16.2% in R15 (179 vs 150) and by 15.8% in both R20 (747 vs 629) and R23 (1780 vs 1499).

The PassMark suite reveals where the 201E builds its largest leads. The extended instructions test shows the biggest gap, with the 201E scoring 11035 against the 100U's 7894, a 28.5% advantage. Physics performance also diverges sharply, with the 201E at 1141 versus 876 for the 100U, a 23.2% lead. Data compression favors the 201E by 16.9% (164160 vs 136497), while multithread performance is 15.6% higher (14839 vs 12522).

Other PassMark tests show smaller but still clear margins. Floating point math favors the 201E by 14.8% (33260 vs 28322), random string sorting by 14.6% (17783 vs 15191), integer math by 9.8% (43894 vs 39580), and data encryption by 9% (8931 vs 8128). The find prime numbers test is the closest of the 201E's wins, with a 57 vs 52 score, an 8.8% edge.

The only bright spot for the 100U is in PassMark single-thread performance, where it edges the 201E by 0.7% (3506 vs 3482). This is the same result in both the `passmark_single_thread` and `passmark_singlethread` entries, confirming the consistency of that measurement. However, this narrow win does little to offset the broader pattern of the 201E's superiority across nearly every workload category.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the Intel Core 3 201E for users prioritizing computation throughput. Its wins span all Cinebench versions and nearly all PassMark subtests, with advantages ranging from 8.8% to 28.5%. The average benchmark score reinforces this, with the 201E at 19056 against the 100U's 16148, a difference of 2908 points.

The 100U's appeal rests on its single-thread PassMark score, where it leads by 0.7%. This is a marginal edge, and it does not translate to any Cinebench single-core victory, where the 201E leads by 15.8% or more. The data suggests that for any workload that scales across threads, or for most single-threaded tasks, the 201E is the stronger choice.

The percentile rankings align with the head-to-head results. The 201E sits at the 73rd percentile against all CPUs, while the 100U sits at the 70th. The nearest rival data for the 201E shows it matching the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS with a 0% delta, and edging the Intel Core i5-12400F by 0.1%. The 100U, by contrast, trails its nearest rivals: it is 0.3% behind the Intel Core i7-10850H, 0.5% behind the Intel Core i5-10600KF, 1.1% behind the Intel Core i7-1260U, and 1.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 4600H.

For users in mobile or low-power scenarios, the 100U has its place, given its 15W TDP. But on raw performance, the 201E is the clear winner. The data does not support picking the 100U for compute-heavy tasks; it only supports picking it for the narrow single-thread PassMark case, and even then by less than a percentage point.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design families. The 100U uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-U codename, part of the Core 3 (Raptor Lake-U) generation. The 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation, with the architecture field left unspecified in the database.

Both are built on the same 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. The 100U does not have a recorded die size, while the 201E has a die size of 163 mm². The 100U targets the mobile segment with an Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the 201E is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1700.

Core configuration differs significantly. The 100U has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. This means the 201E relies on a higher per-core throughput to achieve its benchmark wins, while the 100U has more physical cores but lower clock rates.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core L1 and L2 allocations: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 differs, with the 100U offering 10 MB and the 201E offering 12 MB. This extra 2 MB of shared cache likely contributes to the 201E's advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is identical in type, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configurations. The 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the 100U does not have a bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory support is another differentiator: the 201E supports ECC, while the 100U does not.

PCIe capabilities diverge sharply. The 100U provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This gives the 201E both a newer PCIe generation and double the lane count for CPU-attached devices.

Integrated graphics also differ. The 100U uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the 201E uses UHD Graphics 730. The part numbers are SRMYL for the 100U and SRVTR for the 201E.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most visible difference: 6 cores for the 100U versus 4 cores for the 201E, with both at 8 threads. Clock speeds favor the 201E substantially. The base clock for the 100U is 1.20 GHz, while the 201E starts at 3.60 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the 100U at 4.70 GHz and the 201E at 4.80 GHz.

Power draw is a major separator. The 100U has a TDP of 15W, typical for a mobile part. The 201E has a TDP of 60W, reflecting its desktop positioning. This fourfold difference in power envelope explains much of the performance gap.

The shared L3 cache differs, with the 100U at 10 MB and the 201E at 12 MB. The 201E also carries a recorded die size of 163 mm², a field absent for the 100U. Memory bandwidth is listed for the 201E at 76.8 GB/s, while the 100U has no such entry.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the 201E. The 100U does not support ECC. PCIe generation and lane count differ, with the 201E offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus the 100U's Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The integrated GPU models differ as noted: UHD Graphics 64EU versus UHD Graphics 730.

Release dates place the 100U first at 2024-01-07, followed by the 201E at 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the 100U is $426. The launch MSRP for the 201E is $134. Both are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 3 100U wins only 2, both being the PassMark single-thread test with a 0.7% margin.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The 201E leads by 15.8% in all three Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, R23). In PassMark multithread, the lead is 15.6%. The largest multi-core gap is in extended instructions at 28.5%.

Q: Does the 100U have any advantage in single-thread performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the 100U scores 3506 against 3482 for the 201E, a 0.7% advantage. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, the 201E leads by 15.8% to 16.2%.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The 100U has 6 cores and 8 threads. The 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. Both use the same per-core L1 cache of 80 KB and per-core L2 of 1.25 MB.

Q: How do the TDP values compare?

A: The 100U has a TDP of 15W, while the 201E has a TDP of 60W. This reflects the mobile versus desktop market segments.

Q: What memory and PCIe features differ?

A: Both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode. The 201E adds ECC memory support and a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The 201E also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, whereas the 100U provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes.