Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Processor 300T Comparison

Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Processor 300T are both desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but they occupy distinctly different positions in the performance hierarchy. The Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread Bartlett Lake part with a 3.60 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock, while the Processor 300T is a 2-core, 4-thread Raptor Lake-S part with a 3.40 GHz base clock and no boost clock listed. The database records a full benchmark suite for the Core 3 201E, while the Processor 300T has no recorded benchmark scores, which shapes the analysis below.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E wins on every measurable axis because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark data. The Processor 300T has an empty benchmark array in the database, meaning there are no Cinebench, PassMark, or other scores to compare. The Core 3 201E has a percentile rank of 73 against all CPUs, placing it ahead of roughly three-quarters of the processors in the database. The Processor 300T sits at the 50th percentile, a lower standing, though this rank is not accompanied by any average score.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core 3 201E shows strong results. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 12613, its Cinebench R20 multicore score is 5297, and its Cinebench R15 multicore score is 1271. PassMark multithread score is 14839, with integer math at 43894 and floating point math at 33260. Data compression in PassMark reaches 164160, and random string sorting hits 17783. These figures indicate a processor that handles parallel tasks such as rendering, compression, and scientific calculations with solid throughput.

Single-thread performance is also well represented for the Core 3 201E. Cinebench R23 singlecore is 1780, Cinebench R20 singlecore is 747, and Cinebench R15 singlecore is 179. PassMark single thread score is 3482, and the extended instructions score is 11035. Physics simulation in PassMark records 1141, while find prime numbers registers 57. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz supports these results, giving the Core 3 201E a clear advantage in lightly threaded applications.

The Processor 300T has no wins in the database because no scores exist for it. With 2 cores and 4 threads, a 3.40 GHz base clock, and no boost clock, its expected performance would be lower than the Core 3 201E in nearly all scenarios, but the data does not quantify this. The Core 3 201E also has twice the shared L3 cache at 12 MB versus 6 MB, further supporting its lead in cache-sensitive workloads.

The Verdict

The Core 3 201E is the processor to select for users who need actual measured performance. Its average benchmark score is 19056, and its nearest rivals are closely matched: the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19039 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982 with a 0.4% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18979 with a 0.4% delta. This places the Core 3 201E within a very tight cluster of processors, effectively matching a Ryzen 5 7535HS and edging out an i5-12400F in average score.

The Processor 300T, by contrast, has no average score and no rivals listed in the database. Its 50th percentile rank is the only comparative signal, and it suggests a mid-pack standing, but without scores, the verdict is simple: the Core 3 201E is the only option with verifiable performance data. The launch MSRP of the Core 3 201E is $134, and the launch MSRP of the Processor 300T is $82. The Core 3 201E targets users who need multi-threaded capability, higher clock speeds, and ECC memory support. The Processor 300T suits scenarios where the lower 35 W TDP is a priority, as the Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP.

For users who require ECC memory, the Core 3 201E supports it, while the Processor 300T does not. The Core 3 201E also includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Processor 300T has UHD Graphics 710. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory and use Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. The Core 3 201E has a measured memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s; the Processor 300T has no bandwidth figure recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, so no direct pairwise scores exist between the Core 3 201E and the Processor 300T. The comparison must rely on the Core 3 201E's standalone results and the architectural differences between the two parts.

The Core 3 201E delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12613. With double the cores and threads of the Processor 300T, this score reflects the parallelism advantage of 4 cores and 8 threads over 2 cores and 4 threads. The Core 3 201E's 4.80 GHz boost clock drives its Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1780, a figure the Processor 300T cannot match given its lack of a boost clock in the database.

PassMark results for the Core 3 201E are comprehensive. The multithread score of 14839 and single thread score of 3482 show balance across both workload types. Integer math at 43894 and floating point math at 33260 indicate strong ALU and FPU performance. Data encryption at 8931 and extended instructions at 11035 show the Core 3 201E handles security and SIMD workloads effectively. The Processor 300T has none of these scores recorded, so the Core 3 201E is ahead by default in every category.

The Core 3 201E's 12 MB shared L3 cache is twice the Processor 300T's 6 MB. Cache-sensitive workloads, such as data compression at 164160 in PassMark, benefit from the larger pool. The Processor 300T's smaller cache and fewer threads would likely reduce such scores, but the database offers no confirmation.

The Core 3 201E has a 73rd percentile rank versus the Processor 300T's 50th. This 23-point gap in percentile is the clearest comparative statement available. The Core 3 201E's average score of 19056 places it in the same band as the Ryzen 5 7535HS and Core i5-12400F, while the Processor 300T has no average score to anchor its percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-threaded performance?

A: The Core 3 201E, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12613 and a PassMark multithread score of 14839. The Processor 300T has no recorded multi-threaded scores.

Q: Does the Processor 300T support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory support is listed as false for the Processor 300T, while the Core 3 201E lists ECC memory support as true.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Processor 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056. The AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS scores 19047 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19039 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982 with a 0.4% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7773X scores 18979 with a 0.4% delta.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two processors use?

A: The Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Processor 300T uses UHD Graphics 710.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W. The Processor 300T has a TDP of 35 W.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E and Processor 300T differ in core architecture, cache hierarchy, and feature set. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename with a Core 3 generation label, while the Processor 300T uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-S codename. Both are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel with a 163 mm² die size.

Core configuration is the primary difference. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Processor 300T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Processor 300T has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock recorded in the database.

Cache allocation differs significantly. Both processors have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 12 MB on the Core 3 201E versus 6 MB on the Processor 300T. This doubling of L3 cache gives the Core 3 201E a substantial advantage in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Memory and platform features show both similarities and differences. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus, and both use Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU-only lanes. The Core 3 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Processor 300T has no bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Core 3 201E but not on the Processor 300T.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Processor 300T includes UHD Graphics 710. Both processors are locked, with multiplier unlocked set to false, and both are currently active in production. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Processor 300T was released on 2024-01-07. Part numbers are SRVTR for the Core 3 201E and SRN3K for the Processor 300T.

The power envelope is a clear differentiator. The Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP, while the Processor 300T has a 35 W TDP. The lower TDP of the Processor 300T makes it suitable for compact or power-constrained desktop builds, though the Core 3 201E offers higher clock speeds, more threads, more cache, and ECC support. The database records the Core 3 201E's launch MSRP as $134 and the Processor 300T's launch MSRP as $82.