Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 7 250H Comparison

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core 7 250H sit on opposite ends of Intel’s current mobile and desktop lineup, but the data shows they are not direct competitors. The Core 3 201E is a desktop processor built for Socket 1700, while the Core 7 250H is a mobile processor on BGA 1744. Despite both being 10 nm Intel parts, the Core 7 250H delivers substantially higher benchmark scores across every recorded test, making it the clear performance leader. The Core 3 201E, however, offers ECC memory support and a lower launch MSRP, which may appeal to specific workstation or embedded use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 7 250H also has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to 4.80 GHz on the Core 3 201E.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core 7 250H?

A: The Core 7 250H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 12 MB shared L3 cache found on the Core 3 201E. The Core 7 250H also has 2 MB of L2 cache per core versus 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 201E.

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

A: Yes, the Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Core 7 250H does not support ECC memory, which is a notable difference for users requiring error-correcting code.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe solution in the mobile chip has 96 execution units, indicating a more capable integrated GPU for the Core 7 250H.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 7 250H has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 35,728, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201E has an average score of 19,056, which puts it in the 73rd percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The Core 7 250H has a launch MSRP of $502, while the Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134. This price difference reflects the Core 7 250H's superior specifications and benchmark performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 10 nm process node and Intel foundry, but their underlying architectures diverge significantly. The Core 3 201E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 generation, and is designed for desktop Socket 1700. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The chip uses a dual-channel memory bus supporting DDR4 and DDR5, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 16 lanes available from the CPU.

The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Core 7 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh). It is a mobile processor on BGA 1744 with 14 cores and 20 threads. Its base clock is 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock reaches 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the desktop part. The L1 cache is the same 80 KB per core, but L2 is larger at 2 MB per core, and L3 is doubled to 24 MB shared. Memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though the memory bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 8 lanes from the CPU, which is fewer than the Core 3 201E's 16 lanes, reflecting its mobile positioning.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 7 250H also has a higher TDP at 45 W, but the Core 3 201E's TDP is 60 W, which is unusual given the desktop part's lower core count. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core 7 250H's die size is not recorded. Both processors are production active, with the Core 7 250H released earlier on 2024-12-17, and the Core 3 201E released on 2025-01-12.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Intel Core 7 250H wins every single recorded test, taking 17 wins out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 3 201E does not win a single benchmark. For users who need maximum performance in multi-threaded workloads, rendering, or data processing, the Core 7 250H is the only choice based on the recorded scores. Its average benchmark score of 35,728 is nearly double the Core 3 201E's 19,056, and its 85th percentile ranking versus all CPUs is well above the Core 3 201E's 73rd percentile.

The Core 3 201E's only advantages are its lower launch MSRP of $134 and ECC memory support. For a desktop build where error correction is critical and performance demands are modest, the Core 3 201E could be justified. However, the data shows a massive performance gap, with the Core 7 250H leading by 59.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 45.4% in Cinebench R20 multi-core. The Core 7 250H is a mobile processor, so it is not a drop-in replacement for a Socket 1700 system, but for anyone comparing performance, the Core 7 250H is the superior processor in every measurable way.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across almost every major specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock favors the Core 7 250H at 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 60 W for the Core 3 201E and 45 W for the Core 7 250H. The socket is different: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 1744 for the mobile part.

Cache sizes differ: L1 is the same at 80 KB per core, but L2 is 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 201E versus 2 MB per core on the Core 7 250H. L3 cache is 12 MB shared versus 24 MB shared. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 3 201E at 76.8 GB/s; the Core 7 250H's bandwidth is not in the database. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Core 7 250H. PCIe lanes differ, with 16 Gen 5 lanes on the Core 3 201E and 8 Gen 5 lanes on the Core 7 250H. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The die size is 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E, while the Core 7 250H's die size is not recorded. Release dates differ, with the Core 7 250H released on 2024-12-17 and the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP is $134 for the Core 3 201E and $502 for the Core 7 250H. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 7 250H dominates every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 7 250H scores 3,147 against the Core 3 201E's 1,271, a delta of 59.6% in favor of the Core 7 250H. Single-core in R15 shows a smaller but still significant gap: 298 versus 179, a 39.9% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core results are 9,697 versus 5,297, a 45.4% advantage for the Core 7 250H, and single-core in R20 is 1,368 versus 747, also a 45.4% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the gap to 23.8%, with scores of 16,561 versus 12,613, while single-core R23 shows a 7.8% lead for the Core 7 250H at 1,931 versus 1,780.

PassMark tests show even larger differences. Data compression scores are 303,269 versus 164,160, a 45.9% lead. Data encryption is 18,206 versus 8,931, a 50.9% advantage. Extended instructions score 17,318 versus 11,035, a 36.3% lead. Finding prime numbers shows 106 versus 57, a 46.2% difference. Floating point math is 65,094 versus 33,260, a 48.9% lead. Integer math shows the largest gap at 55.7%, with scores of 99,100 versus 43,894. Multi-thread performance is 27,030 versus 14,839, a 45.1% lead. Physics scores are 1,824 versus 1,141, a 37.4% advantage. Random string sorting shows 34,136 versus 17,783, a 47.9% lead. Single-thread scores are 4,148 versus 3,482, a 16.1% advantage for the Core 7 250H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 250H wins in every workload category recorded in the database. Its largest margins are in integer math, where it leads by 55.7%, and data encryption, where it leads by 50.9%. These results indicate strong performance in computational tasks that scale with core count and threading. The Core 7 250H also excels in data compression, floating point math, and multi-thread benchmarks, all showing leads above 45%. Its single-thread advantage is more modest at 7.8% in Cinebench R23, but it still holds a lead in every single-thread test.

The Core 3 201E does not win any benchmark. Its only recorded advantages are non-performance related: ECC memory support, a lower launch MSRP of $134, and a desktop socket with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. For workloads that require error-correcting memory, such as certain scientific or financial computing environments, the Core 3 201E is the only viable option between the two. Its lower TDP of 60 W is higher than the Core 7 250H's 45 W, so it does not offer an efficiency advantage. The Core 3 201E also has a smaller L3 cache and fewer cores, so it is better suited for basic desktop tasks where the Core 7 250H's performance is unnecessary. Based on the data, the Core 7 250H is the superior processor for any performance-sensitive application, while the Core 3 201E is a niche choice for ECC-capable desktop builds.