Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided comparison. The Intel Core i9-14900F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E does not claim a single victory. The magnitude of the i9-14900F's advantage varies widely across workloads, from a modest single-thread lead to a crushing multi-core dominance.

Starting with multi-core rendering, the i9-14900F delivers 3,986 points in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 1,271 for the Core 3 201E, a delta of 68.1%. The gap remains consistent in Cinebench R20, where the i9-14900F scores 16,611 against 5,297, and in Cinebench R23, where it posts 39,551 versus 12,613. Each of these results shows the same 68.1% deficit for the Core 3 201E, indicating that the scaling penalty is uniform across the Cinebench family.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with a smaller relative gap. The i9-14900F scores 562 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 2,344 in R20 single-core, and 5,583 in R23 single-core. The Core 3 201E manages 179, 747, and 1,780 respectively. Again, the delta is fixed at 68.1% across all three Cinebench single-core tests. This consistency suggests the i9-14900F's architectural advantages apply evenly to both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the two processors diverge most sharply. In integer math, the i9-14900F scores 177,066 against 43,894 for the Core 3 201E, a 75.2% advantage that represents the largest gap in the entire dataset. Floating point math shows a 72.2% difference, with the i9-14900F at 119,550 and the Core 3 201E at 33,260. Prime number finding favors the i9-14900F by 72.7%, scoring 209 versus 57. Random string sorting shows a 72.1% gap, with scores of 63,728 and 17,783.

Data compression and encryption workloads also favor the higher-end part heavily. The i9-14900F compresses data at a score of 564,207, which is 70.9% ahead of the Core 3 201E's 164,160. Encryption shows the largest percentage difference after integer math, with the i9-14900F at 34,644 versus 8,931, a 74.2% gap. Extended instructions score 31,084 for the i9-14900F, a 64.5% lead over the Core 3 201E's 11,035.

The PassMark multi-thread test gives the i9-14900F a score of 46,532, which is 68.1% ahead of the Core 3 201E's 14,839. Physics simulation shows the smallest multi-core gap in the PassMark suite, with the i9-14900F at 2,899 versus 1,141, a 60.6% difference.

The smallest overall gap appears in single-thread performance. The PassMark single-thread test shows the i9-14900F at 4,506 and the Core 3 201E at 3,482, a 22.7% difference. This indicates that while the i9-14900F still leads in lightly threaded workloads, the margin is far less dramatic than in heavily parallel tasks.

Looking at aggregate scores, the i9-14900F averages 60,008 across all benchmark tests, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056, landing in the 73rd percentile. The i9-14900F's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX at 60,099 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX at 60,104 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T at 60,572 (0.9% higher). The Core 3 201E sits close to the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19,047 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19,039 (0.1% higher).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark tests. The Intel Core 3 201E wins zero.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the i9-14900F leads by 75.2%. The i9-14900F scores 177,066 while the Core 3 201E scores 43,894.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The i9-14900F leads in all single-core tests, but the margin is smallest here. In PassMark single-thread, the i9-14900F scores 4,506 versus 3,482 for the Core 3 201E, a 22.7% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 68.1% gap, with scores of 5,583 and 1,780.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The i9-14900F has an average benchmark score of 60,008, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 3 201E averages 19,056, placing it in the 73rd percentile.

Q: How does the i9-14900F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i9-14900F's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, which scores 60,099, a 0.2% difference. The AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX scores 60,104, also 0.2% higher, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T scores 60,572, 0.9% higher.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19,047, essentially matching the Core 3 201E's 19,056. The Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19,039, a 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18,982, a 0.4% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use different silicon. The Intel Core 3 201E is based on Bartlett Lake, a Core 3 generation part, while the Intel Core i9-14900F uses Raptor Lake architecture from the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation.

Both processors are built on Intel's 10 nm process node and are fabricated by Intel. The die sizes differ substantially, however. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the i9-14900F has a larger die at 257 mm².

The core configurations are radically different. The Core 3 201E uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i9-14900F uses 24 cores and 32 threads. This difference in core count explains much of the multi-core performance gap observed in the benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. Both processors share the same L1 cache configuration of 80 KB per core. The L2 cache differs, with the Core 3 201E using 1.25 MB per core and the i9-14900F using 2 MB per core. The L3 cache shows an even larger difference: the Core 3 201E has 12 MB shared, while the i9-14900F has 36 MB shared, three times as much.

The integrated graphics situation differs as well. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the i9-14900F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This means the Core 3 201E can output video without a discrete GPU, while the i9-14900F requires a separate graphics card.

Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. Both support ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Both use Intel Socket 1700, meaning they are physically compatible with the same motherboards.

The release dates differ by about a year. The i9-14900F was released on 2024-01-07, while the Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts show the most obvious divergence. The Core 3 201E offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i9-14900F offers 24 cores and 32 threads.

Clock speeds are also notably different. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The i9-14900F has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a much higher boost clock of 5.80 GHz.

Thermal design power differs, with the Core 3 201E rated at 60 W and the i9-14900F rated at 65 W. Despite the i9-14900F having six times the cores, its TDP is only 5 W higher, which is notable given the performance advantage it delivers.

The L3 cache is three times larger on the i9-14900F, at 36 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. The L2 cache is also larger per core on the i9-14900F, at 2 MB per core versus 1.25 MB per core.

The die size differs by 94 mm², with the i9-14900F at 257 mm² and the Core 3 201E at 163 mm².

The integrated graphics differ, with the Core 3 201E featuring UHD Graphics 730 and the i9-14900F having no integrated graphics.

The part numbers differ, with the Core 3 201E using SRVTR and the i9-14900F using SRN3W.

Both processors use the same memory support (DDR4, DDR5), the same dual-channel memory bus, the same ECC support, the same PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes from CPU), the same socket (Intel Socket 1700), and the same process node (10 nm). Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core i9-14900F outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in every single recorded benchmark. The aggregate benchmark score of 60,008 for the i9-14900F places it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E's 19,056 places it in the 73rd percentile.

The performance differences scale with workload type. In single-threaded tests, the i9-14900F leads by a modest 22.7% in PassMark single-thread, though the Cinebench single-core tests show a larger 68.1% gap. In multi-core and heavily parallel workloads, the i9-14900F's advantage expands to 60.6% to 75.2%, reflecting its 24-core versus 4-core configuration.

The i9-14900F's nearest rivals are all AMD parts with similar scores, which indicates it sits at the top of its performance class. The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12400F, a chip with similar average performance despite having a different core configuration.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, data compression, encryption, or physics simulation, the i9-14900F delivers dramatically higher throughput. Its 75.2% lead in integer math and 72.2% lead in floating point math make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks.

The Core 3 201E's advantages are limited to its integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730 versus none), its lower TDP of 60 W versus 65 W, and its smaller die size. These characteristics make it suitable for systems where a discrete GPU is not desired and where power consumption is a primary concern.

The i9-14900F also carries a higher launch MSRP of $524, while the Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134. Both processors are currently active in production and use the same Intel Socket 1700 platform.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the i9-14900F is the superior performer across all tested workloads, with the largest advantages appearing in multi-core and math-intensive tasks. The Core 3 201E serves a different role, offering a lower-power, integrated-graphics solution for systems where the extreme multi-core performance of the i9-14900F is not required.