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

The Intel Core i9-14900T is the dominant processor in this comparison, winning all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark tests against the Intel Core 3 201E. The data shows a performance chasm that is consistent across every workload category, from single-threaded tasks to heavily parallelized rendering. The Core 3 201E, while a capable modern entry-level desktop part, operates in a completely different performance class, as evidenced by its 73rd percentile ranking versus the i9-14900T's 90th percentile among all CPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900T has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. This six-fold difference in core count is the primary driver of the large multi-core performance gap.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i9-14900T has an average benchmark score of 51,015, while the Core 3 201E has an average score of 19,056. The i9-14900T sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900T boosts up to 5.50 GHz, which is higher than the Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz boost clock. The i9-14900T also has the advantage in single-core performance, scoring 4,348 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,780 for the Core 3 201E.

Q: What are their thermal design power (TDP) ratings?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900T has a TDP of 35 watts, which is lower than the Core 3 201E's 60 watts. This means the i9-14900T delivers significantly higher performance while being rated for a lower power envelope.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core i9-14900T support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: What are their launch MSRPs?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, and the Intel Core i9-14900T has a launch MSRP of $549.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The Intel Core 3 201E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 generation. The Intel Core i9-14900T uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, part of the Core 14th Gen series. Both are manufactured on a 10 nm process node by Intel, but the die sizes differ significantly. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core i9-14900T uses a larger 257 mm² die to accommodate its additional cores.

Cache configurations reveal a major structural difference. Both processors use an 80 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the Core 3 201E has 1.25 MB per core, while the Core i9-14900T has 2 MB per core. The shared L3 cache is where the gap becomes most pronounced. The Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Core i9-14900T has 36 MB, a three-fold increase. This larger cache pool supports the i9-14900T's 24-core, 32-thread configuration, which is designed to feed data to far more execution units than the Core 3 201E's 4-core, 8-thread setup.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Core 3 201E ships with UHD Graphics 730, while the Core i9-14900T includes UHD Graphics 770. Both processors use the Intel Socket 1700, support dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and feature PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core i9-14900T launched earlier on 2024-01-07. Their part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 201E and SRN3U for the Core i9-14900T.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900T wins every single benchmark category in the database, making a case for a winner in all tested workloads. The Core 3 201E does not win a single head-to-head test, so any use-case advantage must be inferred from the data rather than from direct victories. The i9-14900T's largest relative advantage appears in integer math, where it leads by 68.2%, and in data encryption, where it leads by 67%. These are workloads that scale directly with core count and thread availability.

The Core 3 201E is the quieter presence in the data. Its strengths are relative to its own specifications: a 4.80 GHz boost clock and a 60 watt TDP. In single-threaded performance, the gap narrows considerably. The Core i9-14900T leads by only 13.3% in PassMark single-thread tests, which is the smallest margin in the entire comparison. This indicates that the Core 3 201E's single-core performance is comparatively competitive, even if it loses outright. For workloads that do not scale across many cores, the Core 3 201E trails by its smallest margins. The Cinebench single-core tests show a 59.1% deficit, but the PassMark single-thread measurement, which includes a broader mix of instructions, shows a much tighter race.

The i9-14900T's 35 watt TDP combined with its 24-core configuration makes it a high-throughput part. Its wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core variants, plus all PassMark tests including physics, floating point math, data compression, and random string sorting. The Core 3 201E has no category where it records a victory, so the use-case split favors the i9-14900T for any performance-oriented task.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i9-14900T has 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are also distinct: the Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz base, while the Core i9-14900T runs at 1.10 GHz base. The boost clocks invert this relationship, with the Core 3 201E reaching 4.80 GHz and the Core i9-14900T reaching 5.50 GHz.

TDP ratings differ, with the Core 3 201E rated at 60 watts and the Core i9-14900T rated at 35 watts. The cache hierarchy differs in L2 and L3 capacity, as described above. The die sizes are 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E and 257 mm² for the Core i9-14900T. The integrated graphics differ between UHD Graphics 730 and UHD Graphics 770. The Core 3 201E has a memory bandwidth figure of 76.8 GB/s in the database, while no equivalent figure is recorded for the Core i9-14900T. The release dates differ, and the launch MSRP differs, with the Core 3 201E at $134 and the Core i9-14900T at $549.

The architecture and codename fields also differ, with the Core 3 201E using Bartlett Lake and the Core i9-14900T using Raptor Lake-R. The generation identifiers are Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) versus Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh). Both share the same socket, memory support, memory bus, ECC support, PCIe configuration, foundry, process node, and production status of Active. Both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance data shows a consistent and overwhelming advantage for the Intel Core i9-14900T. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-14900T scores 30,803 against the Core 3 201E's 12,613, a 59.1% lead. The same 59.1% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core and R20 multi-core, suggesting a proportional scaling across the Cinebench suite. Cinebench R15 multi-core scores are 3,104 versus 1,271, and R20 multi-core scores are 12,937 versus 5,297.

Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9-14900T scores 4,348 versus 1,780. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1,826 versus 747, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 438 versus 179. Each of these tests records a 59.1% delta.

The PassMark suite reveals where the i9-14900T stretches its lead further. The largest margin is in integer math, where the i9-14900T scores 138,149 versus 43,894, a 68.2% advantage. Data encryption shows a 67% lead, with scores of 27,062 versus 8,931. Find prime numbers shows a 65.2% margin, with 164 versus 57. Floating point math and random string sorting both show 64.1% leads, with scores of 92,699 versus 33,260 and 49,484 versus 17,783, respectively.

Data compression shows a 62.4% lead, with the i9-14900T scoring 436,066 versus 164,160. Extended instructions show a 53.4% margin, with 23,660 versus 11,035. PassMark multi-thread shows a 59.1% lead, with 36,239 versus 14,839. PassMark physics shows the smallest multi-thread margin at 49.2%, with 2,245 versus 1,141.

The closest race in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread. The i9-14900T scores 4,016 versus the Core 3 201E's 3,482, a 13.3% lead. This is the only test where the Core 3 201E comes within a single-digit percentage gap, and it suggests that the Bartlett Lake core design is competitive on a per-thread basis despite the massive core count disadvantage.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core i9-14900T outperforms the Intel Core 3 201E in all 17 recorded tests, with an average benchmark score of 51,015 compared to 19,056. The i9-14900T's 90th percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E's 73rd percentile places it in the mid-range.

Users require the Core i9-14900T for any workload that benefits from parallel execution. Its 24 cores and 32 threads deliver leads of 59.1% across the Cinebench suite and up to 68.2% in integer math. The 36 MB of L3 cache and 2 MB L2 per core provide the data bandwidth necessary to keep those cores fed. The 5.50 GHz boost clock ensures that even lightly threaded tasks receive top-tier performance, as shown by the 4,348 Cinebench R23 single-core score.

The Core 3 201E serves a different role. Its 4 cores and 8 threads, 12 MB L3 cache, and 60 watt TDP position it as a modest desktop processor. Its single-thread PassMark score of 3,482 trails the i9-14900T by only 13.3%, which indicates that its core architecture is not far behind on a per-thread basis. Its launch MSRP of $134 reflects its entry-level positioning. The data suggests it is adequate for basic computing tasks where the i9-14900T's additional core count would go unused.

The i9-14900T is the clear choice for any performance-sensitive scenario. The Core 3 201E is the choice for systems where the lower core count is acceptable. The 35 watt TDP of the i9-14900T is notable, as it delivers this level of performance while being rated for less power than the Core 3 201E. The data does not support any scenario where the Core 3 201E wins, so the selection is based entirely on workload requirements and acceptable performance levels.