Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core 7 350 occupy different positions in the benchmark database, with the Core 3 201E favoring sustained multi-threaded workloads and the Core 7 350 dominating single-core and burst-oriented tasks. The Core 3 201E records an average benchmark score of 19056 against the Core 7 350’s 17779, a gap of roughly 7.2%. The Core 3 201E also sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st. These aggregate figures, however, mask a clear division of labor: the Core 3 201E wins 5 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Core 7 350 wins 12.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E is the stronger choice for heavily threaded, throughput-bound applications. Its largest victory comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 12613 against the Core 7 350’s 8030, a 57.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in integer math, where the Core 3 201E posts 43894 versus 33734, a 30.1% lead. Data compression also favors the Core 3 201E: 164160 against 143123, a 14.7% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Core 3 201E as well, with 17783 versus 17238, a 3.2% edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 3 201E wins narrowly, 1271 to 1220, a 4.2% lead.

The Core 7 350, by contrast, wins nearly every test that stresses single-core responsiveness or specialized instruction throughput. Its most decisive win is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 292 against the Core 3 201E’s 179, a 38.7% advantage. Prime number finding shows a 46.7% lead (107 versus 57). Floating-point math goes to the Core 7 350 by 22.3% (42809 versus 33260). Single-thread PassMark tests show a 15.1% edge (4100 versus 3482). Data encryption favors the Core 7 350 at 10933 versus 8931, an 18.3% margin. Extended instructions go to the Core 7 350 by 8.4% (12045 versus 11035). The Core 7 350 also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core by a slim 1.4% (5373 versus 5297) and PassMark multi-thread by 2.2% (15170 versus 14839), though these margins are small enough to be considered statistical noise. Physics tests show a 2.7% edge for the Core 7 350 (1173 versus 1141).

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. Long-running multi-core renders, compression jobs, and integer-heavy calculation workloads favor the Core 3 201E. Short-burst, latency-sensitive tasks such as encryption, extended instruction sets, and single-threaded application performance favor the Core 7 350.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm process. This process gap explains much of the efficiency and single-core behavior. The Core 3 201E is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, whereas the Core 7 350 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1516.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Core 3 201E provides 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to fill its pipelines. The Core 7 350 provides 6 cores but only 6 threads, meaning every core is a single-threaded execution unit. Despite having fewer threads, the Core 7 350 still wins the multi-thread PassMark test (15170 versus 14839), which indicates its individual cores are substantially more capable.

Clock speeds reinforce this. The Core 3 201E has a 3.60 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The Core 7 350 has a much lower 1.50 GHz base clock but matches the 4.80 GHz boost clock. The Core 7 350’s ability to reach the same boost frequency from a far lower base suggests a design optimized for burst performance under a 15 W TDP, versus the Core 3 201E’s 60 W TDP.

Cache configurations also differ. The Core 3 201E offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 350 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 350’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help explain its single-core advantage, while the Core 3 201E’s larger shared L3 pool benefits its multi-threaded workload performance.

Memory support distinguishes the platforms. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. The Core 3 201E also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 350 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 350 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Die size is recorded for the Core 3 201E at 163 mm², while the Core 7 350’s die size is not recorded in the database. Both processors are active production parts. The Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12, and the Core 7 350 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core 7 350 has a launch MSRP of $469.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear choice based on workload profile. For multi-threaded desktop workloads, the Core 3 201E is the stronger part. Its 57.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 30.1% lead in integer math are the largest margins recorded between the two. The 12 MB shared L3 cache and dual-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth support sustained parallel execution. It also offers ECC memory support, which is absent on the Core 7 350.

For single-threaded and mobile workloads, the Core 7 350 is the stronger part. It wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all single-thread tests and most specialized instruction tests. Its 3 nm process, larger per-core caches, and 15 W TDP make it a better fit for power-constrained environments. The single-channel memory bus and 6 MB shared L3 are limitations, but the per-core performance compensates in latency-sensitive tasks.

The Core 3 201E sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 7 350 sits at the 71st. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 201E include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-12400F (0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-1335U (0.4% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7773X (0.4% delta). The nearest rivals for the Core 7 350 include the Intel Core 5 221TE (-0.5% delta), the AMD EPYC 9374F (0.5% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT (-0.6% delta), and the Intel Core 5 120U (-0.7% delta). These rival positions confirm that neither processor is far outside its expected performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Core 3 201E wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 12613 versus 8030, a 57.1% lead. However, the Core 7 350 wins Cinebench R20 multi-core narrowly, 5373 versus 5297, a 1.4% margin.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Core 7 350 leads in every recorded single-core test. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 38.7% advantage (292 versus 179), and PassMark single-thread shows a 15.1% advantage (4100 versus 3482).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Core 7 350 does not.

Q: How do the TDP figures compare?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W, while the Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which processor has the larger shared L3 cache?

A: The Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 350 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest recorded win for the Core 3 201E is in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 3 201E scores 12613 against the Core 7 350’s 8030, a 57.1% advantage. This is the single biggest performance gap in either direction across all 17 tests. The Core 3 201E’s 8 threads and 12 MB shared L3 appear to drive this result, as the test scales well with thread count and cache capacity.

The second-largest win for the Core 3 201E is PassMark integer math, where it scores 43894 against 33734, a 30.1% lead. Data compression follows with 164160 versus 143123, a 14.7% margin. Random string sorting shows a smaller 3.2% edge (17783 versus 17238). Cinebench R15 multi-core rounds out the Core 3 201E’s wins with 1271 versus 1220, a 4.2% margin.

The Core 7 350’s largest win is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 292 against 179, a 38.7% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 46.7% gap in favor of the Core 7 350 (107 versus 57), but the absolute scores are low, so the percentage is amplified by the small denominator. Floating-point math shows a 22.3% lead (42809 versus 33260). Data encryption shows an 18.3% lead (10933 versus 8931). PassMark single-thread shows a 15.1% lead (4100 versus 3482). Extended instructions show an 8.4% lead (12045 versus 11035).

The remaining Core 7 350 wins are narrow. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 758 versus 747, a 1.5% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 5373 versus 5297, a 1.4% margin. PassMark multi-thread shows 15170 versus 14839, a 2.2% margin. PassMark physics shows 1173 versus 1141, a 2.7% margin.

The Core 3 201E wins the tests that benefit from thread parallelism and larger shared cache. The Core 7 350 wins the tests that reward high per-core IPC and modern instruction execution. The data shows a balanced but clearly differentiated pair of processors.