Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E records an average benchmark score of 19056, while the Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374. The Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, and the Core 7 360 is in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The Core 3 201E is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, which has an average score of 19047 and a delta of 0%. It is also 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-12400F (19039).

Q: What is the closest competitor for the Core 7 360?

A: The Intel Core i3-13100 is the nearest rival with an average score of 18380 and a delta of 0%. The Core 7 360 is just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core 5 330 (18345) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18318).

Q: In which benchmark does the Core 3 201E show its largest winning margin?

A: The largest win for the Core 3 201E is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 43894 versus 34238 for the Core 7 360, a difference of 28.2%. It also leads PassMark data compression by 14.9% (164160 versus 142877).

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark advantage for the Core 7 360?

A: The Core 7 360 dominates PassMark find prime numbers with a score of 120 versus 57, a 52.5% advantage. It also leads PassMark floating point math by 26% (44963 versus 33260) and PassMark single thread by 18.5% (4274 versus 3482).

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor claim in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Core 7 360 wins 14 of the 17 recorded benchmarks, while the Core 3 201E wins 3. The Core 7 360 takes all six Cinebench tests, while the Core 3 201E wins PassMark data compression, integer math, and random string sorting.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core 7 360 is the stronger performer in the majority of tests, winning 14 out of 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its advantages are substantial in single-threaded work, floating-point math, and prime number calculations. The Core 7 360 also delivers higher multi-core scores across every Cinebench version, from a 7.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core to a 7.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The Intel Core 3 201E, however, is not without its own strengths. It wins PassMark integer math by a wide 28.2% margin and PassMark data compression by 14.9%. These results indicate that the Core 3 201E is better suited for workloads that rely heavily on integer arithmetic and data compression tasks. Its average benchmark score of 19056 also places it slightly above the Core 7 360's 18374, and its 73rd percentile ranking edges out the Core 7 360's 72nd percentile.

For users prioritizing overall throughput in integer-heavy applications, the Core 3 201E is the better option. For those who need faster single-threaded performance, higher floating-point capability, and better Cinebench rendering scores, the Core 7 360 is the clear choice. The Core 7 360 also has a much lower TDP of 15 watts versus 60 watts, making it a more efficient part for mobile systems, though it carries a higher launch MSRP of $426 compared to the Core 3 201E's $134.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 7 360 takes every Cinebench test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1374 versus 1271, a 7.5% lead. The single-core version shows a similar gap: 193 versus 179, also 7.5%. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern with 5726 versus 5297, and R20 single-core shows 808 versus 747, both at 7.5%. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues with 13634 versus 12613, and R23 single-core delivers 1924 versus 1780. All six tests produce the same relative margin, indicating a consistent performance advantage across rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more varied picture. The Core 7 360 wins PassMark data encryption by 20%, scoring 11164 against 8931. It also leads extended instructions by 10.9% (12390 versus 11035), find prime numbers by 52.5% (120 versus 57), floating point math by 26% (44963 versus 33260), and multithread by 4.5% (15544 versus 14839). The Core 7 360 further wins physics by 5.9% (1213 versus 1141) and single thread by 18.5% (4274 versus 3482).

The Core 3 201E counters in three PassMark tests. Its most decisive win is integer math, where 43894 beats 34238 by 28.2%. Data compression shows 164160 versus 142877, a 14.9% margin. Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the Core 3 201E ahead by just 0.8% (17783 versus 17636). The overall win count of 14 to 3 in favor of the Core 7 360 is driven by its dominance in processing tasks that favor higher clock speed per core and newer microarchitecture, even though the Core 3 201E holds a slight edge in average score across all recorded benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in form factor and platform. The Intel Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, indicating a desktop versus mobile design respectively. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Core 7 360 runs at just 1.50 GHz. Both boost to 4.80 GHz.

Thermal design power shows the Core 7 360 is far more power-efficient on paper, rated at 15 watts versus 60 watts for the Core 3 201E. Memory support also diverges: the Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory; the Core 7 360 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 3 201E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 360 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are distinct: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, and the Core 7 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Release dates place the Core 3 201E at 2025-01-12 and the Core 7 360 at 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and the Core 7 360 is $426.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is listed under the Core 5 generation. The process nodes differ dramatically: the Core 3 201E uses Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core 7 360 uses a 3 nm process. The die size for the Core 3 201E is recorded as 163 mm², with no die size listed for the Core 7 360.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Core 7 360 align with its higher single-threaded benchmark scores, while the Core 3 201E's larger shared L3 pool likely contributes to its strong integer math and data compression results.

Both processors are produced by Intel and are currently active in production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 201E and SAE3E for the Core 7 360. The architectural differences, particularly the newer 3 nm node and larger per-core caches, explain the Core 7 360's consistent lead in Cinebench and floating-point workloads, while the Core 3 201E's older but larger L3 cache and dual-channel memory bus support its wins in integer and compression tasks.