Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 9 270H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep: the Intel Core 9 270H wins all 17 recorded comparisons against the Intel Core 3 201E. The closest margins appear in single-threaded workloads, while the widest gaps show up in multi-core and math-heavy tests.

Starting with Cinebench, the Core 9 270H leads by 48.4% in both R15 multi-core (2464 vs 1271) and R15 single-core (347 vs 179). The same 48.4% delta repeats in R20 multi-core (10268 vs 5297) and R20 single-core (1449 vs 747). The gap narrows in R23: the Core 9 270H scores 18000 in multi-core versus 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a 29.9% advantage, and 2040 versus 1780 in single-core, a 12.7% lead.

PassMark results follow a similar pattern. The largest single delta is in integer math, where the Core 9 270H posts 97654 against 43894, a 55.1% margin. Data encryption shows a 53.9% gap (19369 vs 8931), floating point math a 52.9% gap (70640 vs 33260), and random string sorting a 51.8% gap (36867 vs 17783). Data compression sits at 50.8% (333785 vs 164160), prime number finding at 49.1% (112 vs 57), and multi-thread performance at 48.4% (28764 vs 14839).

Extended instructions show a 45% delta (20079 vs 11035), while physics tests come in at 42% (1966 vs 1141). The smallest overall margin is single-thread PassMark, where the Core 9 270H scores 3944 versus 3482, an 11.7% lead.

The average benchmark score tells the broader story: the Core 9 270H averages 38335, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E averages 19056, sitting in the 73rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 9 270H include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H (delta 0.1%), Intel Xeon w3-2525 (delta -0.1%), Intel Core i5-13600HX (delta 0.2%), and AMD Ryzen 7 250 (delta 0.3%). For the Core 3 201E, the closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (delta 0%), Intel Core i5-12400F (delta 0.1%), Intel Core i5-1335U (delta 0.4%), and AMD EPYC 7773X (delta 0.4%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H wins every multi-core benchmark. It leads by 48.4% in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, by 29.9% in R23 multi-core, and by 48.4% in PassMark multi-thread. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 28764 versus 14839 for the Core 3 201E.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference as large as the multi-core gap?

A: No. The single-core margins are smaller but still favor the Core 9 270H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 12.7% delta (2040 vs 1780), and PassMark single-thread shows an 11.7% delta (3944 vs 3482). The R15 and R20 single-core tests show 48.4% deltas, which match the multi-core deltas in those same test versions.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the largest delta at 55.1% (97654 vs 43894). Data encryption follows at 53.9%, floating point math at 52.9%, and random string sorting at 51.8%. The smallest gap is PassMark single-thread at 11.7%.

Q: How do the two processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core 9 270H averages 38335, within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, Intel Xeon w3-2525, Intel Core i5-13600HX, and AMD Ryzen 7 250. The Core 3 201E averages 19056, within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core i5-12400F, Intel Core i5-1335U, and AMD EPYC 7773X.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 270H boosts to 5.80 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 201E boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 9 270H also has a lower base clock at 2.70 GHz compared to 3.60 GHz for the Core 3 201E.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 9 270H does not. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation, while the Core 9 270H uses Raptor Lake-H, part of the Raptor Lake Refresh line. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process and manufactured by Intel.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 9 270H has 14 cores and 20 threads. This core count difference directly explains the multi-core benchmark gaps. Cache hierarchy also diverges: the Core 3 201E carries 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 9 270H also has 80 KB of L1 per core but doubles L2 to 2 MB per core and doubles shared L3 to 24 MB.

The die size for the Core 3 201E is 163 mm², while the Core 9 270H has no recorded die size. Neither processor lists transistor counts. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform, while the Core 9 270H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile platform. The market segments reflect this: the Core 3 201E is classified as Desktop, the Core 9 270H as Mobile.

PCIe support differs in lane count. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 9 270H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 3 201E at 76.8 GB/s; the Core 9 270H has no listed bandwidth figure.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 9 270H uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, the Core 9 270H does not.

The release dates sit roughly a month apart: the Core 9 270H released on 2024-12-17, and the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12. Both are currently marked as Active in production. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for the Core 3 201E is $134, and the launch MSRP for the Core 9 270H is $697.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity in raw performance: the Core 9 270H wins every single benchmark in the comparison, with deltas ranging from 11.7% to 55.1%. The average benchmark score of 38335 versus 19056 represents roughly a 101% advantage for the Core 9 270H, and the percentile ranking (86th vs 73rd) confirms it sits in a higher performance tier overall.

The Core 3 201E is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the benchmark results. It supports ECC memory, which the Core 9 270H does not. It uses a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) rather than a mobile BGA package, which matters for system builders planning upgrades or long-term servicing. Its 60 W TDP is higher than the 45 W TDP of the Core 9 270H, reflecting different thermal design targets.

For anyone selecting purely on measured performance, the Core 9 270H is the clear choice. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration with 24 MB of L3 cache and a 5.80 GHz boost clock delivers decisive wins in every workload category recorded. The only scenarios where the Core 3 201E makes sense are those requiring ECC support or a desktop socket, where the Core 9 270H cannot be used at all.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core 9 270H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 14 |

| Threads | 8 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-H |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Core 9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | Not listed |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $697 |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SRQ6V |

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 270H wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its largest advantages appear in multi-threaded and math-intensive tasks: integer math (55.1% ahead), data encryption (53.9%), floating point math (52.9%), random string sorting (51.8%), and data compression (50.8%). These results make it the stronger option for rendering, scientific computing, compression workloads, and any parallel processing task that scales across 14 cores and 20 threads.

The Core 3 201E shows its best relative performance in single-threaded PassMark, where the gap narrows to 11.7%. Cinebench R23 single-core also shows a smaller delta at 12.7%. Still, the Core 9 270H holds the lead in every single-thread test as well, so there is no recorded workload where the Core 3 201E comes out ahead.

Where the Core 3 201E genuinely differentiates itself is in platform attributes. ECC memory support makes it suitable for reliability-sensitive builds where memory error correction is required. The desktop socket (Intel Socket 1700) allows for standard desktop motherboards and potentially easier cooling and upgrade paths compared to the mobile BGA 1744 package of the Core 9 270H. The 60 W TDP, while higher than the 45 W TDP of the Core 9 270H, fits within typical desktop power budgets.

The Core 9 270H, by contrast, is a mobile processor with a lower TDP and a smaller PCIe lane count (8 lanes vs 16 lanes). Its 5.80 GHz boost clock is the highest recorded between the two, and its 24 MB of L3 cache doubles the 12 MB found on the Core 3 201E. For users who need maximum performance in a mobile form factor, the data points entirely to the Core 9 270H. For users who need ECC, a desktop socket, or the flexibility of a standard ATX or microATX build, the Core 3 201E is the only one of the two that fits those requirements.