CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-1345U and Intel Core 3 201E are two strikingly different interpretations of Intel’s modern x86 design, split by market segment and performance philosophy. The i5-1345U is a 10-core, 12-thread mobile processor built for efficiency, while the Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop part with a much higher power envelope. Benchmark results show a near statistical tie in overall average scores, 19,411 for the i5 versus 19,056 for the Core 3, but the distribution of wins tells a clear story of divergent strengths. The data shows that the Core 3 201E takes 11 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the i5-1345U secures 6. However, the margins and the nature of those wins reveal that this is not a simple victory lap for the desktop chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E dominates sustained multi-core workloads, and its wins are decisive. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 12,613 against the i5-1345U’s 7,724, a massive 38.8% advantage. That gap is the single largest in the entire comparison. Similarly, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 3 leads by 6.7% (5,297 vs. 4,942). This pattern extends to PassMark’s multi-thread test, where the Core 3 edges ahead by 2.2% (14,839 vs. 14,511), and to physics simulation, where it posts a 28.3% lead (1,141 vs. 818). Extended instruction workloads also favor the Core 3, with a 16.8% lead in PassMark extended instructions (11,035 vs. 9,178). Prime number finding is another win, at 17.5% (57 vs. 47). These results point to a chip that sustains high throughput over long periods, likely benefiting from its 60W TDP and desktop-grade thermal headroom.

The i5-1345U, conversely, wins where its hybrid architecture and higher core count matter most. It takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by 3.1% (1,311 vs. 1,271) and single-core by a whopping 34.1% (240 vs. 179) in that same older test. In integer math, the i5 is 20.4% ahead (52,847 vs. 43,894), and in floating-point math it leads by 8.1% (35,939 vs. 33,260). Data encryption is a standout win for the i5, at 15.2% (10,288 vs. 8,931). Random string sorting also goes to the i5 by 6.2% (18,888 vs. 17,783). Notably, the i5’s wins are in workloads that often scale with core count or leverage specific instruction paths, suggesting that its 10 cores and 12 threads provide a structural advantage in certain parallel tasks, despite the Core 3’s higher clock speeds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at a fundamental level. The i5-1345U is built on Raptor Lake-U architecture (Raptor Lake family), while the Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, but that is where the similarity ends. The i5 features a hybrid core layout with 10 cores and 12 threads, paired with a base clock of 1.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 3 201E is a more traditional design with 4 cores and 8 threads, but it runs at a 3.60 GHz base and a 4.80 GHz boost. That higher frequency is a direct result of the Core 3’s 60W TDP, versus the i5’s 15W TDP, a fourfold difference that explains the sustained performance gap.

Cache configurations are identical on a per-core basis: both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. Memory support is also the same (DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel), but the Core 3 201E has a specified memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, whereas the i5’s bandwidth is not listed. The Core 3 also supports ECC memory, a feature the i5 lacks. PCIe connectivity differs significantly: the Core 3 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5 is limited to Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are another differentiator, the i5 uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Core 3 has UHD Graphics 730.

The physical packages are distinct as well. The i5-1345U uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, typical of mobile designs, while the Core 3 201E uses the desktop Intel Socket 1700. The Core 3’s die size is listed as 163 mm², whereas the i5’s die size is not provided. Release dates also differ: the i5 launched on 2023-01-03, the Core 3 on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the i5-1345U is $309, and for the Core 3 201E it is $134.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core 3 201E is the better choice for raw, sustained compute. Its 38.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 28.3% lead in PassMark physics are not marginal, they represent a class-level difference in throughput. For users running long render jobs, complex simulations, or heavy multi-threaded compilation, the Core 3’s higher base clock and 60W TDP deliver results that the mobile i5 cannot match. The Core 3 also wins in single-threaded PassMark tests (3,482 vs. 3,415, a 1.9% lead), making it the better all-around performer for everyday responsiveness.

However, the i5-1345U is not without its own merits. Its 20.4% lead in integer math and 15.2% lead in data encryption suggest that certain algorithmic workloads benefit from its 10-core, 12-thread configuration. The 34.1% single-core win in Cinebench R15 is notable, though it may reflect test-specific quirks. For users in mobile or low-power environments, the i5’s 15W TDP is a decisive factor, and its performance in floating-point math (8.1% ahead) shows it can hold its own in scientific workloads. The i5 also matches the Core 3 in overall percentile ranking (73rd percentile for both), indicating they sit in the same performance tier relative to all CPUs.

Pick the Core 3 201E if you need maximum multi-core performance in a desktop chassis and can accommodate its 60W power draw. Pick the i5-1345U if you’re constrained by power or mobility and need a chip that still excels in integer-heavy and encryption tasks. The Core 3 is the stronger compute engine; the i5 is the more versatile one.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1,780 points, beating the i5-1345U’s 1,724 points by 3.1%.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Core 3 201E scores 12,613 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 38.8% advantage over the i5-1345U’s 7,724.

Q: Does the i5-1345U win any benchmark by a double-digit margin?

A: Yes, the i5-1345U leads by 20.4% in PassMark integer math (52,847 vs. 43,894), by 15.2% in data encryption (10,288 vs. 8,931), and by 34.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core (240 vs. 179).

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two chips?

A: The i5-1345U has a 15W TDP, while the Core 3 201E has a 60W TDP.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, but the i5-1345U does not.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes and a newer standard?

A: The Core 3 201E features PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-1345U has PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Core 3 201E is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it outperforms the i5-1345U by 38.8% (12,613 vs. 7,724). This is the most telling result of the entire comparison, as it reflects sustained all-core performance. The Core 3 also shows a strong 28.3% lead in PassMark physics (1,141 vs. 818), a 17.5% lead in prime number finding (57 vs. 47), and a 16.8% lead in extended instructions (11,035 vs. 9,178). In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core 3 wins by 6.7% (5,297 vs. 4,942), and it edges out the i5 in PassMark multi-thread by 2.2% (14,839 vs. 14,511). Even in single-threaded PassMark, the Core 3 takes a 1.9% lead (3,482 vs. 3,415). Data compression is essentially a tie, with the Core 3 winning by just 0.1% (164,160 vs. 164,005).

The i5-1345U’s counterattacks are focused and sharp. Its 34.1% win in Cinebench R15 single-core (240 vs. 179) is the second-largest margin in the entire dataset. In integer math, the i5 is 20.4% ahead (52,847 vs. 43,894), and in data encryption it leads by 15.2% (10,288 vs. 8,931). Floating-point math favors the i5 by 8.1% (35,939 vs. 33,260), and random string sorting goes to the i5 by 6.2% (18,888 vs. 17,783). The i5 also takes Cinebench R15 multi-core by 3.1% (1,311 vs. 1,271). Notably, the i5 loses Cinebench R20 single-core by 6.7% (697 vs. 747) and R23 single-core by 3.1% (1,724 vs. 1,780), showing that the Core 3’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs. 4.70 GHz) carries weight in modern single-thread tests. Benchmark results indicate a split decision: the Core 3 is the multi-core king, while the i5 holds the edge in math and encryption workloads.