Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor achieves the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E records an average benchmark score of 19056, while the Intel Core 3 N350 records 9903. The 201E also sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 66th percentile for the N350.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Core 3 201E scores 1780 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 885 for the Core 3 N350, a 101.1% advantage for the 201E. The single-thread Passmark results show a similar margin, with 3482 for the 201E against 1974 for the N350, a 76.4% difference.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 3 N350 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Despite having half the physical cores, the 201E with Hyper-Threading matches the thread count of the 8-core N350.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 N350 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor provide?

A: The Core 3 201E provides 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 3 N350 provides 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel memory bus.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts. The N350 is designed for a much lower power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 10 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, but the underlying designs diverge significantly. The Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, listed under the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. This architectural split explains much of the performance gap observed in benchmark results.

The Core 3 201E uses a desktop-oriented layout with 4 physical cores and 8 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading support. The Core 3 N350 packs 8 physical cores but only 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is present. The 201E compensates for fewer cores with much higher clock speeds: a 3.60 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock, compared to a 0.10 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost clock for the N350. The low base clock on the N350 is characteristic of an efficiency-focused mobile design.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 201E uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The N350 uses 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 201E's larger L3 allocation provides a substantial pooled cache for the four cores, while the N350's smaller L3 reflects its lower-power positioning.

Memory support differs as well. The 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but uses a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 201E also includes ECC memory support, which is absent on the N350.

Other distinguishing features include the PCIe interface. The 201E offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the N350 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ too: the 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, and the N350 includes UHD Graphics 770. The 201E uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop systems, while the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264 for mobile platforms. The 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the N350 has no recorded die size. The 201E was released on January 12, 2025, with the N350 released on January 6, 2025.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core 3 201E wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with no wins for the N350. The 201E's average benchmark score of 19056 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which scores 19047, and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039, with delta percentages of 0% and 0.1% respectively. The N350's average score of 9903 places it near the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9706 (2% delta) and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 at 9684 (2.3% delta).

For desktop users seeking raw compute throughput, the Core 3 201E is the appropriate choice. Its superior single-core and multi-core scores across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, plus Passmark workloads, indicate a processor capable of sustained performance. The 73rd percentile ranking confirms it sits above the majority of recorded CPUs.

The Core 3 N350 targets a different use case. Its 7-watt TDP and single-channel memory bus point to low-power mobile systems where battery life and thermal limits take precedence over peak performance. The 66th percentile ranking shows it remains competitive within its efficiency class, but the data does not support choosing it for performance-critical tasks. The 201E delivers more than double the multi-threaded performance in every Cinebench test, and the N350's 8 cores do not compensate for its lower clock speeds and reduced cache.

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the Core 3 201E is the stronger processor in every measured metric. The N350 serves only as a low-power alternative for constrained mobile environments.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 4 (201E) versus 8 (N350)
• Threads: 8 (201E) versus 8 (N350)
• Base Clock: 3.60 GHz (201E) versus 0.10 GHz (N350)
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz (201E) versus 3.90 GHz (N350)
• TDP: 60 W (201E) versus 7 W (N350)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (201E) versus Intel BGA 1264 (N350)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (201E) versus Twin Lake (N350)
• Architecture: not listed (201E) versus Twin Lake (N350)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (201E) versus not recorded (N350)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (201E) versus 96 KB per core (N350)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (201E) versus 2 MB shared (N350)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (201E) versus 6 MB shared (N350)
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 (201E) versus DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 (N350)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (201E) versus Single-channel (N350)
• Memory Bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (201E) versus 38.4 GB/s (N350)
• ECC Memory: Supported (201E) versus Not supported (N350)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 Lanes (201E) versus Gen 3, 9 Lanes (N350)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 (201E) versus UHD Graphics 770 (N350)
• Market Segment: Desktop (201E) versus Mobile (N350)
• Release Date: 2025-01-12 (201E) versus 2025-01-06 (N350)
• Launch MSRP: $134 (201E) versus not recorded (N350)
• Part Number: SRVTR (201E) versus SRPNS (N350)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 3 201E dominates every recorded benchmark. The largest margins appear in Passmark extended instructions and prime number finding. The 201E scores 11035 in extended instructions against 3981 for the N350, a 177.2% difference. In find prime numbers, the 201E scores 57 versus 20, a 185% advantage. These results indicate a substantial gap in instruction-level efficiency and integer workload throughput.

Cinebench multi-core results show consistent doubling of performance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 201E scores 1271 versus 632, a 101.1% delta. R20 multi-core shows 5297 versus 2635, a 101% delta. R23 multi-core shows 12613 versus 6274, also a 101% delta. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 single-core at 179 versus 89 (101.1%), R20 single-core at 747 versus 371 (101.3%), and R23 single-core at 1780 versus 885 (101.1%). The consistency of these margins across all three Cinebench versions confirms the 201E's architectural advantage is not workload-specific.

Passmark multithread results show 14839 for the 201E versus 7382 for the N350, a 101% delta. Passmark physics shows 1141 versus 446, a 155.8% delta, indicating a large advantage in physics simulation workloads. Floating point math scores 33260 versus 17781, an 87.1% delta. Integer math scores 43894 versus 27669, a 58.6% delta.

Memory-sensitive workloads also favor the 201E. Data compression scores 164160 versus 80444, a 104.1% delta. Random string sorting scores 17783 versus 10102, a 76% delta. Data encryption scores 8931 versus 5693, a 56.9% delta. The dual-channel memory bus and higher bandwidth of the 201E contribute to these margins.

Passmark single-thread and singlethread tests both record 3482 for the 201E and 1974 for the N350, a 76.4% delta. The 201E's boost clock of 4.80 GHz against the N350's 3.90 GHz explains much of this single-thread advantage, alongside the architectural differences.

The data shows no test where the N350 closes the gap. Even in workloads that typically favor more physical cores, such as integer math or data compression, the 201E's higher clocks, larger L3 cache, and dual-channel memory overcome the N350's 8-core configuration. The 201E's 17 wins against 0 losses provide a complete picture of superiority across all recorded benchmarks.