Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core 3 N355 are both active Intel processors, but they target completely different segments of the market. The 201E is a desktop part built for Socket 1700, while the N355 is a mobile chip soldered to BGA 1264. The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy between the two, with the 201E winning every recorded test. The scale of that advantage varies heavily by workload, which makes the choice between them straightforward for most builders.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core testing. The 201E scores 12613, while the N355 manages 5262. That is a 139.7% advantage for the desktop chip, the largest single delta in the entire comparison set. The gap persists in single-core, where the 201E posts 1780 against 1039, a 71.3% lead. This pattern repeats across every Cinebench generation. In R20 multi-core, the 201E scores 5297 versus 3612, a 46.7% lead, and in R20 single-core it wins 747 to 509, a 46.8% margin. The R15 results are closer but still favor the 201E: 1271 to 822 in multi-core (54.6%) and 179 to 168 in single-core (6.5%).

PassMark results follow the same direction but with varying intensity. The 201E wins data compression 164160 to 117435, a 39.8% margin. Integer math shows a tighter race: 43894 versus 33894, a 29.5% lead. Floating point math goes to the 201E by 46.6%, with scores of 33260 and 22695. Extended instructions heavily favor the desktop chip, 11035 to 5968, an 84.9% gap. The find prime numbers test shows one of the larger relative differences, with the 201E scoring 57 against 27, a 111.1% advantage. Physics simulation also skews strongly toward the 201E, 1141 to 625, an 82.6% margin.

Random string sorting is comparatively close. The 201E scores 17783 and the N355 scores 14706, a 20.9% lead. Data encryption shows the smallest recorded gap in the entire set: 8931 versus 8121, only a 10% difference. The multithread PassMark score lands at 14839 for the 201E against 10174 for the N355, a 45.9% lead, and the single-thread PassMark score is 3482 versus 2153, a 61.7% advantage. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the 201E wins all 17. The N355 records zero wins.

Where Each One Wins

The 201E wins every workload category recorded in the database, so the analysis becomes a question of degree rather than direction. The largest advantages appear in heavily parallel workloads and in tasks that stress the memory subsystem. Cinebench R23 multi-core, with a 139.7% lead, indicates that long render jobs or CPU-bound compilation tasks will finish in a fraction of the time on the desktop chip. The find prime numbers test, at 111.1%, and extended instructions, at 84.9%, point to similar conclusions for integer-heavy and SIMD-heavy code.

The N355, despite losing every test, closes the gap in specific areas. Data encryption shows only a 10% difference, suggesting the mobile chip handles certain cryptographic workloads with less penalty. Random string sorting sits at a 20.9% gap, which is the second smallest delta. These results imply that the N355 is not universally slow; it just falls behind in raw throughput. For workloads that are not heavily dependent on memory bandwidth or high clock speeds, the N355 remains usable. The single-core R15 score of 168 versus 179, a 6.5% gap, shows that very short, lightly threaded bursts are nearly comparable between the two parts.

The N355 does have one structural advantage: it uses far less power. The recorded TDP is 15 watts, compared to 60 watts for the 201E. The N355 also carries UHD Graphics 770, while the 201E uses UHD Graphics 730. The database does not include iGPU benchmark scores, but the model number difference indicates the N355 has a newer graphics block. For a fanless chassis or a compact laptop, the N355 is the only viable option of the two, even if its CPU performance trails.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design families. The 201E is based on Bartlett Lake and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The N355 uses Twin Lake architecture and belongs to the Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) generation. Both are built on a 10 nm process at Intel, and both are manufactured by Intel. The die size for the 201E is recorded at 163 mm², while the N355 has no die size listed in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning each core handles two threads. The N355 has 8 cores but only 8 threads, so it has no simultaneous multithreading. This explains why the 201E, despite having half the physical cores, wins multi-core benchmarks by such wide margins. The 201E also runs at much higher clocks: 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, versus 1.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost for the N355.

Cache layouts are fundamentally different. The 201E uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a 12 MB shared L3. The N355 uses 96 KB of L1 per core, a 2 MB shared L2, and a 6 MB shared L3. The 201E has double the L3 capacity, and its L2 is allocated per core rather than shared across the whole chip. This favors the desktop part in workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 6 MB. The N355’s larger per-core L1 helps with small, hot loops, but the overall cache budget is smaller.

Memory support also splits the two. The 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, with a recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The N355 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only in single-channel mode, with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. That is exactly half the bandwidth of the 201E. The memory bus difference is a major contributor to the multi-core performance gap, since each core on the N355 must share a single channel. The 201E also supports ECC memory, while the N355 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The N355 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes. That makes the 201E suitable for a discrete GPU and fast NVMe storage, while the N355 is limited to lower-bandwidth peripherals. The N355 is a mobile part, soldered to BGA 1264, whereas the 201E drops into a standard Socket 1700. The 201E launched on January 12, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $134. The N355 launched on January 6, 2025, with no MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E wins all recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1780 versus 1039 for the N355, a 71.3% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 3482 against 2153, a 61.7% margin.

Q: Is the 8-core N355 faster than the 4-core 201E in multi-threaded work?

A: No. Despite having twice the physical cores, the N355 loses every multi-core benchmark. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the 201E at 12613 and the N355 at 5262, a 139.7% difference. The N355 has no simultaneous multithreading, lower clocks, and single-channel memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the N355 has a TDP of 15 watts. The N355 is designed for mobile or low-power systems, while the 201E requires desktop-class cooling and power delivery.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 201E supports ECC memory. The N355 does not.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The N355 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 201E also uses a per-core L2 allocation of 1.25 MB per core, while the N355 uses a 2 MB shared L2.

Q: Can the N355 match the 201E in any benchmark?

A: The N355 loses all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its closest result is data encryption, where the 201E leads by only 10% (8931 versus 8121). Random string sorting is the next smallest gap, at 20.9%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core 3 201E is the stronger processor in every measured dimension. It wins all 17 benchmarks, with leads ranging from 10% to 139.7%. Its dual-channel memory, higher clocks, and per-core L2 cache make it suitable for desktop builds where CPU throughput matters. The 12 MB L3, 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and ECC support reinforce that positioning. Builders assembling a Socket 1700 system for general productivity, light rendering, or multi-threaded workloads should choose the 201E. Its percentile rank of 73 versus the N355’s 68 also reflects a higher standing in the overall CPU population.

The N355 should only be selected for systems that require its 15-watt envelope. It is a mobile part on BGA 1264, with integrated UHD Graphics 770 and support for LPDDR5 memory. For a laptop or a low-power embedded system, the N355 delivers functional performance with a fraction of the power draw. The data shows it is competitive in narrow areas such as encryption and short single-threaded bursts, but it cannot keep pace in sustained multi-core work. Users who need a drop-in desktop processor with strong all-around performance should ignore the N355 entirely; the 201E outperforms it in every recorded test while offering a standard socket, ECC memory, and higher memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core 3 N355 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Core 3 (Alder Lake-N) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SRPNT |