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

Intel Core 3 100UL and Intel Core 3 201E are both desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, yet they target distinctly different usage profiles based on the recorded database measurements. The 100UL is a 6-core, 8-thread Raptor Lake-PS part with a 15 W TDP, while the 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread Bartlett Lake part with a 60 W TDP and a higher boost clock. The data shows that the 201E holds a commanding lead in every recorded benchmark, while the 100UL offers a much lower power envelope and a different feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is one-sided. The Intel Core 3 201E wins all 17 recorded tests, with no wins recorded for the 100UL in the head-to-head comparison. The 201E achieves an average benchmark score of 19056, placing it at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The 100UL, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile, with no individual benchmark results available for comparison.

The 201E is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its Cinebench scores show strong multicore performance: 5297 in R20 multicore and 12613 in R23 multicore. Single-core performance is equally dominant, with an R23 single-core score of 1780. The PassMark results reinforce this pattern, with a multithread score of 14839, a single-thread score of 3482, and an integer math score of 43894.

The 100UL, with no recorded benchmark scores, cannot be positioned as a performance winner in any category. Its advantage lies elsewhere: the 15 W TDP, which is one-quarter of the 201E's 60 W TDP, and its Raptor Lake-PS architecture with 6 cores versus the 201E's 4 cores. The 100UL also supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory but lacks ECC support, while the 201E adds ECC memory capability. For workloads that prioritize low power draw and a wider core count over raw throughput, the 100UL has a structural argument, but the recorded data does not show any benchmark where it wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL has 6 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores. Both have 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 100UL has a 15 W TDP, while the 201E has a 60 W TDP. The 201E consumes four times the power budget of the 100UL.

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

A: Yes, the 201E has ECC memory support. The 100UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the single-core Cinebench R23 scores?

A: The 201E scores 1780 in Cinebench R23 single-core. No single-core R23 score is recorded for the 100UL in the database.

Q: How does the 201E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 201E scores 19056 on average, which is 0% different from the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (19047), 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-12400F (19039), and 0.4% ahead of both the Intel Core i5-1335U (18982) and AMD EPYC 7773X (18979).

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel memory buses. The 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the 100UL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Since the 100UL has no recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the 201E's results. The 201E's Cinebench R15 multicore score is 1271, and its single-core score is 179. In Cinebench R20, the 201E delivers 5297 multicore and 747 single-core. The R23 results show 12613 multicore and 1780 single-core. These scores indicate a processor that handles both multithreaded rendering and lightly threaded tasks with similar efficiency.

The PassMark suite provides a broader view. The 201E scores 164160 in data compression, 8931 in data encryption, and 11035 in extended instructions. Prime number finding scores 57, while floating point math reaches 33260. Integer math is 43894, and random string sorting is 17783. The multithread score is 14839, physics is 1141, and the single-thread score is 3482. The highest relative strengths appear in data compression and integer math, where the scores are multiples higher than the encryption or prime number results.

The 201E's nearest rival data places it in a competitive mid-range position. It is virtually tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (delta 0%), and only 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-12400F. The gap widens slightly to 0.4% against the Intel Core i5-1335U and AMD EPYC 7773X. These narrow margins suggest that the 201E is not a class leader but sits firmly within a dense cluster of similarly performing CPUs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.20 GHz for the 100UL and 3.60 GHz for the 201E. Boost clocks are 4.50 GHz and 4.80 GHz, respectively. The 100UL has a 15 W TDP, while the 201E has a 60 W TDP.

Cache configurations differ in L3 capacity: the 100UL has 10 MB shared L3, while the 201E has 12 MB shared L3. Both have 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The 201E has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the 100UL has no die size recorded. The 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the 100UL has no launch MSRP recorded.

PCIe support differs substantially. The 100UL uses Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the 201E uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Memory support is the same for both (DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel), but the 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and ECC support, neither of which is present in the 100UL's data. The integrated graphics also differ: the 100UL has UHD Graphics 64EU, while the 201E has UHD Graphics 730.

Architecture Differences

The 100UL is built on Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, while the 201E uses Bartlett Lake architecture. Both use a 10 nm process node from Intel. The 100UL has 6 cores, which suggests a hybrid or higher-core-count design, while the 201E has 4 cores but a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz. The 100UL's lower base clock of 1.20 GHz and 15 W TDP indicate a power-optimized design, likely intended for thermally constrained systems.

The 201E's Bartlett Lake architecture includes a 163 mm² die size, while the 100UL has no die size recorded. The 201E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, a generation ahead of the 100UL's PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. This makes the 201E more suitable for modern expansion cards and storage devices that can use the additional bandwidth.

ECC memory support is another architectural differentiator. The 201E supports ECC, which is often associated with workstation or server-oriented reliability, while the 100UL does not. The 201E also has a larger L3 cache (12 MB versus 10 MB), which can improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The 100UL's integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 64EU) and the 201E's (UHD Graphics 730) represent different GPU configurations, though no benchmark data is recorded for either.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core 3 201E as the stronger performer across every benchmark where scores exist. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12613 and single-core score of 1780, combined with a PassMark multithread score of 14839, position it as a capable desktop processor. The 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, alongside a 0% delta from the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and a 0.1% lead over the Intel Core i5-12400F, confirms that it competes with established mid-range parts.

The Intel Core 3 100UL offers no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. Its advantages are structural: a 15 W TDP that is a quarter of the 201E's 60 W, six cores versus four, and a Raptor Lake-PS architecture. These traits may appeal to systems where power efficiency is prioritized over raw speed, but the absence of any recorded wins means the data cannot support a performance-based recommendation.

For users who need the highest throughput, the 201E is the only option with measurable results. For users who require low power draw, ECC memory support, or PCIe Gen 5, the 201E again holds the advantage in the latter two categories. The 100UL's case rests entirely on its lower TDP and higher core count, which may matter in specific low-power or multi-threaded contexts, but the benchmark database does not contain evidence of its performance. The 201E is the defensible choice based on the recorded data.