Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database includes a full suite of recorded results for the Intel Core 3 N350, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has no individual benchmark scores logged. This means the comparison relies on the N350's measured performance and the architectural data for both parts. The N350's average benchmark score is 9903, placing it at the 66th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 201TE has a percentile rank of 50, indicating it sits at the midpoint of all recorded processors.

Looking at the N350's measured results, the strongest showing comes in the Passmark data compression test, where it scores 80444. This is a significant outlier compared to its other Passmark results, suggesting a strong showing in workloads that utilize compression algorithms. The data encryption test returns a score of 5693, while extended instructions produce 3981. The floating point math score is 17781, and integer math reaches 27669. Single-thread performance in Passmark is recorded at 1974, with the multithread score at 7382. The physics test produces 446, random string sorting reaches 10102, and the find prime numbers test returns 20.

In Cinebench workloads, the N350 records a multicore score of 2635 in R20 and 6274 in R23. Single-core scores are 371 in R20 and 885 in R23. The older R15 test shows a multicore score of 632 and a single-core score of 89. These Cinebench numbers place the N350 in a competitive position relative to several older and mid-range processors. The nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-3770 with an average score of 9706, which is 2% lower than the N350's average. The Intel Core i5-1035G1 scores 9684, also 2.3% lower. On the higher end, the AMD EPYC 7F52 averages 10159, which is 2.5% above the N350, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 10230, 3.2% higher.

The 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct head-to-head wins cannot be established from measured data. However, the architectural specifications allow for an informed comparison. The 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz across its 4 cores and 8 threads, while the N350 boosts to 3.90 GHz across 8 cores and 8 threads. The 201TE's higher clock speed suggests a single-thread advantage, while the N350's larger core count and shared L2 cache design provide a different multi-thread profile. The N350's measured Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6274 and single-core score of 885 are the only concrete performance figures available, and they indicate a capable processor for its 7-watt power envelope. The 201TE's lack of recorded scores means its performance must be inferred from its clock speeds and cache hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use distinct architectures. The 201TE is based on Bartlett Lake and belongs to the Core 3 generation. Its process node is 10 nm, manufactured by Intel, with a die size of 163 mm². The N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture, also from the Core 3 generation but listed under Alder Lake-N. It shares the same 10 nm process node and Intel foundry, though its die size is not recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs substantially. The 201TE has 4 physical cores and 8 threads, meaning it supports hyper-threading. The N350 has 8 physical cores but only 8 threads, indicating no hyper-threading support. This is a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle parallel workloads. The 201TE's per-core L1 cache is 80 KB, with 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The N350 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The N350's shared L2 design is notable, as it pools the cache across all cores rather than allocating it per core like the 201TE.

Memory support sets them apart. The 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only in a single-channel configuration, halving the bandwidth to 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the N350. This makes the 201TE better suited for memory-intensive workloads and error-correcting environments.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the N350 uses UHD Graphics 770. The N350's graphics solution is the higher-tier option, though the database does not provide specific graphics benchmarks. PCIe support also varies: the 201TE offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the N350 provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes. This gives the 201TE a substantial advantage in connectivity bandwidth for expansion cards and storage. The sockets are incompatible: the 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop builds, while the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264 for mobile applications.

The power profiles are vastly different. The 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the N350 draws only 7 watts. This reflects their intended market segments: the 201TE is a desktop processor, and the N350 is a mobile processor. The release dates are close, with the N350 launching on January 6, 2025, and the 201TE on January 12, 2025. The 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, while the N350 has no recorded launch price. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports distinct use-case advantages for each processor based on their measured and specified characteristics. The N350 has recorded benchmark scores, and its average of 9903 with a 66th percentile rank shows it outperforms roughly two-thirds of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals confirm this positioning: it beats the Intel Core i7-3770 by 2% and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 by 2.3%. The N350's 8-core design with shared L2 cache and 6 MB L3 provides a solid multi-thread foundation for its low power draw. The single-channel memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s is a limiting factor, but the processor compensates with efficient core design and a 3.90 GHz boost clock.

The 201TE, despite lacking benchmark scores, has specifications that point to clear advantages in certain workloads. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock is 0.70 GHz higher than the N350's maximum, which should translate to stronger single-thread performance in lightly-threaded applications. The dual-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth is double the N350's capability, making the 201TE better suited for memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks such as large data transfers and certain scientific computations. ECC support on the 201TE is another differentiator, appealing to workstation or server environments where data integrity is critical. The PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes provides substantially more bandwidth for GPUs and NVMe storage compared to the N350's Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

The N350 wins in scenarios where power efficiency is paramount. Its 7-watt TDP is a fraction of the 201TE's 45-watt draw, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile devices, embedded systems, and compact laptops. The single-channel memory configuration reduces complexity and power consumption further. The N350's UHD Graphics 770 is a higher-tier integrated solution than the 201TE's UHD Graphics 730, potentially offering better graphical performance for media consumption and light gaming without a discrete GPU.

The 201TE wins in desktop environments where performance per core and memory bandwidth matter more than power consumption. Its Socket 1700 platform allows for upgradability and standard desktop cooling solutions. The 12 MB L3 cache is double the N350's 6 MB, which can improve performance in workloads that benefit from larger shared cache pools. The 201TE also supports ECC memory, which is absent on the N350, making it a viable option for error-sensitive computing tasks.

The N350's measured Cinebench R23 multicore score of 6274 and single-core score of 885 demonstrate balanced performance across both threaded and single-threaded tasks. Its Passmark multithread score of 7382 and single-thread score of 1974 reinforce this balance. The 201TE's lack of recorded scores means the database cannot quantify its wins, but the architectural data supports a clear split: the 201TE for desktop compute with high clocks and wide memory, the N350 for mobile efficiency with more cores and lower power.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores. Both have 8 threads, meaning the 201TE supports hyper-threading while the N350 does not.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two processors?

A: The N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903, placing it at the 66th percentile. The 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The N350 outperforms the Intel Core i7-3770 by 2% and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 by 2.3% in average score.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The 201TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The N350 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 but only in single-channel mode with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 201TE also supports ECC memory, while the N350 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which is higher than the N350's 3.90 GHz. The 201TE also has a base clock of 2.90 GHz compared to the N350's 0.10 GHz.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The 201TE has a TDP of 45 watts, while the N350 has a TDP of 7 watts. This makes the N350 significantly more power-efficient and suitable for mobile applications.

Q: Are the processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop motherboards, while the N350 uses Intel BGA 1264, which is a soldered mobile socket. They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Core 3 201TE and the Intel Core 3 N350:

• Cores: 4 (201TE) vs 8 (N350)
• Threads: 8 (both, but 201TE uses hyper-threading)
• Base Clock: 2.90 GHz (201TE) vs 0.10 GHz (N350)
• Boost Clock: 4.60 GHz (201TE) vs 3.90 GHz (N350)
• TDP: 45 W (201TE) vs 7 W (N350)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1700 (201TE) vs Intel BGA 1264 (N350)
• Codename: Bartlett Lake (201TE) vs Twin Lake (N350)
• Generation: Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) vs Core 3 (Alder Lake-N)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (201TE) vs not recorded (N350)
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core (201TE) vs 96 KB per core (N350)
• L2 Cache: 1.25 MB per core (201TE) vs 2 MB shared (N350)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (201TE) vs 6 MB shared (N350)
• Memory Support: DDR4, DDR5 (201TE) vs DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 (N350)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (201TE) vs Single-channel (N350)
• Memory Bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (201TE) vs 38.4 GB/s (N350)
• ECC Memory: Supported (201TE) vs Not supported (N350)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 16 lanes (201TE) vs Gen 3, 9 lanes (N350)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 (201TE) vs UHD Graphics 770 (N350)
• Market Segment: Desktop (201TE) vs Mobile (N350)
• Release Date: January 12, 2025 (201TE) vs January 6, 2025 (N350)
• Launch MSRP: $134 (201TE) vs not recorded (N350)
• Part Number: SRPKDQ5CK (201TE) vs SRPNS (N350)
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 (201TE) vs 9903 (N350)
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 50th (201TE) vs 66th (N350)

The architectural differences are substantial. The 201TE is a desktop-oriented processor with higher clocks, wider memory bandwidth, and ECC support, while the N350 is a mobile processor with more cores, lower power consumption, and a shared L2 cache design. The 201TE's PCIe Gen 5 support and 16 lanes provide significantly more expansion capability than the N350's Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The N350's integrated graphics is the higher-tier UHD Graphics 770, while the 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The N350 supports LPDDR5 memory, which the 201TE does not, but the 201TE supports ECC, which the N350 lacks. These differences define two distinct usage profiles: the 201TE for desktop compute tasks requiring high per-core performance and memory reliability, the N350 for power-constrained mobile and embedded applications.