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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Core 3 201E, which wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The only benchmark where the Intel Core 7 160UL takes the lead is PassMark integer math, scoring 47515 against 43894, a 7.6% advantage for the Core 7 160UL. This single win, however, does little to offset the scale of the Core 3 201E's dominance across the rest of the test suite.

The largest margins of victory for the Intel Core 3 201E appear in the PassMark extended instructions test, where it scores 11035 against the Core 7 160UL's 5832, a substantial 89.2% delta. This suggests a major advantage in workloads that utilize advanced CPU instruction sets. Similarly, the data compression test shows a 50.7% delta, with the Core 3 201E scoring 164160 versus 108953, and the random string sorting test shows a 50.2% delta, with scores of 17783 and 11843 respectively. These results indicate a significant performance gap in tasks involving data manipulation and sorting algorithms.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Core 3 201E consistently outperforms the Core 7 160UL by roughly 34.4%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 201E scores 12613, while the Core 7 160UL scores 9386. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Core 3 201E achieving 1780 points in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1325 for the Core 7 160UL, a 34.3% delta. The Cinebench R15 and R20 tests mirror these findings, showing the same approximate 34.4% performance gap in both multi-core and single-core workloads.

The PassMark multithread benchmark also shows a 34.4% delta, with the Core 3 201E scoring 14839 and the Core 7 160UL scoring 11043. The physics test shows a 39.3% delta, with scores of 1141 and 819. Data encryption shows a 25% delta, with the Core 3 201E scoring 8931 against 7146. The floating point math test shows a 29.6% delta, with scores of 33260 and 25670. The find prime numbers test shows a smaller 14% delta, with scores of 57 and 50. The smallest margin of victory for the Core 3 201E is in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 3482 against 3391, a slim 2.7% delta.

These results paint a clear picture: the Intel Core 3 201E is the stronger performer in nearly every measured category. The Core 7 160UL's advantage in integer math is an isolated data point, and its overall average benchmark score of 14232 places it well behind the Core 3 201E's average of 19056. The Core 3 201E also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 73rd percentile versus the Core 7 160UL's 69th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 19056, compared to the Intel Core 7 160UL's average of 14232.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E scores 12613, while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 9386, giving the Core 3 201E a 34.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160UL win any benchmark comparisons?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 160UL wins the PassMark integer math test, scoring 47515 compared to the Core 3 201E's 43894, a 7.6% difference.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has the higher single-thread performance, scoring 3482 in the PassMark single-thread test versus 3391 for the Core 7 160UL, a 2.7% delta.

Q: How do the processors compare in the PassMark data compression test?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E scores 164160, while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 108953, resulting in a 50.7% advantage for the Core 3 201E.

Q: What is the performance gap in the PassMark extended instructions test?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E scores 11035, while the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 5832, giving the Core 3 201E a substantial 89.2% lead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectural foundations. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Intel Core 7 160UL, in contrast, is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, and belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process node by Intel.

The core and thread configurations differ significantly. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. This is a notable structural difference, yet the benchmark data shows that the Core 3 201E's higher clock speeds compensate for its lower core count in most workloads.

The cache hierarchy is identical in structure, with both processors featuring 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. Both also share a 12 MB L3 cache. The memory support is the same, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 160UL does not.

The integrated graphics differ between the two. The Intel Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core 7 160UL uses the more capable Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The PCIe support also differs: the Core 3 201E supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160UL supports Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds are substantially different. The Intel Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz. The boost clocks show a different relationship, with the Core 3 201E boosting to 4.80 GHz and the Core 7 160UL boosting to a higher 5.20 GHz.

The thermal design power (TDP) values are also widely separated. The Intel Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has a TDP of only 15 watts. This indicates the Core 7 160UL is designed for much lower power consumption, although the recorded data does not include efficiency measurements.

The memory bandwidth is listed for the Intel Core 3 201E at 76.8 GB/s, while no figure is recorded for the Intel Core 7 160UL. The release dates differ, with the Core 7 160UL released on 2024-04-07 and the Core 3 201E released on 2025-01-12. The Intel Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core 7 160UL. Both processors have locked multipliers, and the Core 3 201E has the part number SRVTR, while the Core 7 160UL's part number is listed as unknown.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 201E is the clear winner in most scenarios. Its performance in Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, is consistently about 34.4% ahead of the Core 7 160UL. This makes it the better choice for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and any application that relies heavily on CPU compute. The PassMark multithread and physics tests also show a similar 34.4% and 39.3% advantage respectively, reinforcing its strength in multi-threaded applications.

The Core 3 201E also excels in data-centric tasks. The PassMark data compression and random string sorting tests show it is roughly 50% faster than the Core 7 160UL. The extended instructions test shows an even larger 89.2% advantage, indicating superior performance in workloads that use specialized CPU instructions, such as encryption, media encoding, or scientific calculations. The floating point math test shows a 29.6% advantage, further solidifying its position for numerical computation.

The Intel Core 7 160UL's only recorded win is in the PassMark integer math test, where it scores 47515 against 43894. This indicates it has a slight edge in workloads that are heavily dependent on integer operations, which can be common in certain types of financial calculations, database operations, or some gaming logic. Its much lower TDP of 15 watts, compared to the Core 3 201E's 60 watts, also suggests it would be the more appropriate option for systems where power consumption is a primary concern, though the data does not quantify the actual power draw.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core 3 201E is the superior processor for general performance and most specialized workloads. It wins 16 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 19056 compared to the Core 7 160UL's 14232. Its consistent 34.4% lead across the Cinebench suite and its large margins in data compression, extended instructions, and physics tests make it the clear choice for users who need maximum compute throughput.

The Intel Core 7 160UL, while offering a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz and a lower TDP of 15 watts, only manages to win the PassMark integer math test. Its lower base clock of 1.80 GHz and its overall lower benchmark scores position it as a less performant option. For applications that require integer-heavy processing, it holds a narrow 7.6% advantage, but this is unlikely to overcome the Core 3 201E's dominance elsewhere. Users who prioritize the lowest power envelope over raw speed might find the Core 7 160UL's specifications appealing, but the recorded performance data firmly favors the Intel Core 3 201E.