Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

The Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core 7 160HL are two desktop processors sharing the same LGA 1700 socket but targeting different performance tiers. The Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on the Bartlett Lake architecture, while the Core 7 160HL is a 14-core, 20-thread part based on Raptor Lake. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two specific processors, and the Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores of its own. However, the Core 3 201E has a full set of performance data from Cinebench and PassMark tests, along with a list of nearest rivals that provides context for its standing. This analysis compares the two based on their recorded specifications and the measured performance of the Core 3 201E relative to its closest competitors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not include any direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Core 3 201E versus the Intel Core 7 160HL. This means there are no side-by-side scores for Cinebench R15, R20, R23, or any PassMark workload that would allow a direct comparison of their measured performance. The wins count for each processor stands at zero in this category.

For the Core 3 201E, the recorded data shows a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12613 and a single-core score of 1780. In Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 5297 and the single-core score is 747. The older Cinebench R15 tests show a multicore score of 1271 and a single-core score of 179. PassMark results include a multithread score of 14839, a single-thread score of 3482, and specific workload scores such as 43894 for integer math, 33260 for floating point math, and 164160 for data compression.

The Core 7 160HL has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. With an average benchmark score of zero and no entries in the benchmarks array, there is no measured data to compare against the Core 3 201E. The Core 3 201E holds a 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Core 7 160HL sits at the 50th percentile, but that percentile figure is based on its lack of recorded scores rather than measured performance.

Because the Core 3 201E has no head-to-head results against the Core 7 160HL, the closest available reference points come from its nearest rivals. The database shows the Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, which places it essentially level with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047 and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039. The delta percentages are 0% for the Ryzen and 0.1% for the i5-12400F, indicating near-identical overall performance. The Core 3 201E is 0.4% ahead of both the Intel Core i5-1335U and the AMD EPYC 7773X, which each have average scores around 18982 and 18979 respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split between these two processors is defined by their core counts and the available performance data. The Core 7 160HL, with 14 cores and 20 threads, is structurally positioned for heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or software compilation. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB L2 cache per core provide a larger cache hierarchy than the Core 3 201E, which has 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The higher core and thread count suggests an advantage in multi-threaded tasks, though no benchmark scores confirm this.

The Core 3 201E, with 4 cores and 8 threads, is a lower-core-count part. Its recorded single-thread performance is strong: the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1780 and PassMark single-thread score of 3482 place it competitively against its nearest rivals. The data shows the Core 3 201E matches the performance of six-core and eight-core processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F in average benchmark score, indicating that its 4 cores are efficient enough to stay within 0.4% of those parts. Tasks that rely on single-thread speed, such as gaming or lightly threaded productivity applications, would favor the Core 3 201E based on its measured single-core results.

The Core 7 160HL has no wins recorded in the database, and the Core 3 201E also has no wins, so the split is not based on measured head-to-head results. Instead, the Core 3 201E wins on the strength of having actual benchmark data that shows it performing within 0.4% of several rivals with more cores. The Core 7 160HL wins on paper in core count, thread count, cache size, and boost clock speed, but those advantages are not backed by any recorded performance numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is classified as part of the Core 3 generation, built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². The Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, also on a 10 nm process node, but its die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache structures differ between the two. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB on the Core 3 201E versus 2 MB on the Core 7 160HL. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared on the Core 3 201E and 24 MB shared on the Core 7 160HL. This gives the Core 7 160HL a larger total cache footprint, which typically benefits workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

The integrated graphics units differ as well. The Core 3 201E ships with UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe part is a higher-tier integrated GPU, though no benchmark scores exist in the database to quantify the difference. Memory support is identical on both: DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel. The Core 3 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL has no bandwidth figure listed.

PCIe support also separates the two. The Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 160HL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. This means the Core 3 201E provides a newer PCIe generation and more CPU-attached lanes, which could matter for storage and GPU connectivity.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201E but absent on the Core 7 160HL. The Core 3 201E also has a known part number, SRVTR, while the Core 7 160HL part number is listed as unknown. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Core 7 160HL was released earlier on 2024-04-07.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E and 2.50 GHz for the Core 7 160HL. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz and 5.20 GHz respectively, giving the Core 7 160HL a higher maximum frequency.

Thermal design power differs: the Core 3 201E is rated at 60 W, and the Core 7 160HL is rated at 45 W. Despite having more cores, the Core 7 160HL has a lower TDP, which indicates a different power management profile. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core 7 160HL has no launch MSRP recorded.

Memory bandwidth is listed at 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E, with no figure for the Core 7 160HL. ECC memory support is true for the Core 3 201E and false for the Core 7 160HL. PCIe configuration differs: Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 3 201E versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 7 160HL. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201E and Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 160HL.

Both processors are unlocked in the sense that they have a locked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status. Both use the Intel Socket 1700 and support DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. Neither has a recorded transistor count or 3D V-Cache.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz, and the Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz.

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

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E has ECC memory support enabled. The Core 7 160HL does not support ECC memory.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, which is 0% different from the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19047, 0.1% different from the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039, and 0.4% different from both the Intel Core i5-1335U and AMD EPYC 7773X.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W, and the Core 7 160HL has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 7 160HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The data supports choosing the Intel Core 3 201E for users who need validated performance and a strong single-thread profile. Its recorded Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1780 and PassMark single-thread score of 3482 are backed by a 73rd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The average benchmark score of 19056 places it within 0.4% of several processors with more cores, including the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F. The Core 3 201E also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes and ECC memory support, making it a solid choice for a system that requires those features. Its launch MSRP is $134.

The Intel Core 7 160HL is the better choice on paper for heavily threaded workloads, given its 14 cores and 20 threads, 24 MB of L3 cache, and higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The lower TDP of 45 W is notable for a part with more cores. However, the absence of any recorded benchmark scores means there is no measured evidence of its performance. The percentile ranking of 50 and an average benchmark score of zero reflect this lack of data. The Core 7 160HL also lacks PCIe Gen 5 and ECC support, and it has a smaller PCIe lane count at 8 lanes of Gen 4.

The decision comes down to measured data versus specification-based expectations. The Core 3 201E delivers confirmed benchmark results that show it competing with higher-core-count rivals. The Core 7 160HL offers more cores and threads but no recorded performance to validate its capabilities. For a builder who wants proven performance and features like ECC and Gen 5 PCIe, the Core 3 201E is the safer pick from the database. For a builder who prioritizes core count and is willing to rely on specifications alone, the Core 7 160HL presents a higher-thread option, but its lack of benchmark data leaves its real-world standing unverified.