Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 5 220H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 220H is the only part in this comparison with recorded benchmark data, and it delivers a broad sweep across every workload category. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded scores in the database, so all quantitative comparisons come from the Core 5 220H's performance profile. That profile shows a processor firmly in the upper half of the database, with a percentile ranking of 80 among all CPUs.

In multi-threaded rendering, the Core 5 220H records 1835 points in Cinebench R15 multicore, 7812 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 11198 in Cinebench R23 multicore. The single-core results follow a similar pattern: 262 in Cinebench R15, 1102 in Cinebench R20, and 1853 in Cinebench R23. These scores indicate a processor that scales well with thread count, which is consistent with its 12-core, 16-thread configuration.

The PassMark suite shows the Core 5 220H's strengths in different computational domains. Integer math scores 73555, floating point math scores 51671, and extended instructions score 14642. Data compression reaches 247921, while data encryption hits 15216. Random string sorting produces 28438, and find prime numbers yields 82. The multithread score is 21884, with a single-thread score of 3405. The physics test records 1478.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Core 5 220H sits within a tight cluster. The AMD EPYC 7203P averages 28583, a delta of 0 percent. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS averages 28549, a delta of 0.1 percent. The Intel Xeon E-2436 averages 28530, a delta of 0.2 percent. The Intel Core i5-12600 averages 28646, a delta of -0.3 percent. The Core 5 220H's average benchmark score is 28574, placing it right in the middle of this group, effectively tied with the EPYC 7203P and within a fraction of a percent of the other three.

Because the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries, the head-to-head comparison cannot rely on direct score differentials. Instead, the available data shows that the Core 5 220H holds a percentile advantage, ranking at 80 versus the Core 3 201TE's 50. That percentile gap reflects a substantial difference in overall performance standing, even without a single shared benchmark result.

The Verdict

The data points to different roles for these two processors. The Intel Core 5 220H, with its 12 cores, 16 threads, and an 80th percentile ranking, is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads based on the recorded scores. Its Cinebench R23 multicore result of 11198 and PassMark multithread score of 21884 confirm strong parallel performance. The nearest rival data shows it trading places with the AMD EPYC 7203P and the Intel Core i5-12600 within a 0.3 percent band, so it competes at a known performance level.

The Intel Core 3 201TE, with 4 cores and 8 threads, has no benchmark data recorded. Its 50th percentile ranking indicates a mid-pack standing, but without scores, the database cannot confirm how it handles specific workloads. Its lower core and thread counts suggest a more modest multi-threading capability, but that is inference from the specification fields, not from measured results.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core 5 220H records a PassMark single-thread score of 3405 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1853. These are solid numbers, and the 4.90 GHz boost clock supports strong per-core performance. The Core 3 201TE has a 4.60 GHz boost clock, which is lower, but without benchmark data the actual single-thread performance cannot be quantified.

The choice between the two depends entirely on workload requirements. For users whose tasks can exploit 16 threads, the Core 5 220H has the measured results to back its selection. For desktop builds with lighter multi-threading needs, the Core 3 201TE offers a simpler 4-core configuration, but the database lacks data to confirm its performance level.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 220H has a recorded average benchmark score, which is 28574. The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark entries, so its average score is 0 in the database.

Q: How does the Core 5 220H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 220H is effectively tied with the AMD EPYC 7203P at a 0 percent delta, is 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS, is 0.2 percent ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2436, and is 0.3 percent behind the Intel Core i5-12600.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, which is triple the core count and double the thread count.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 3 201TE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 5 220H does not have a memory bandwidth figure in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 220H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: Both processors are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel. The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE and 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 220H. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz and 4.90 GHz, respectively. Both have a 45 W TDP.

The socket types are completely different. The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket, while the Core 5 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket. The market segments reflect this: the Core 3 201TE is a desktop part, and the Core 5 220H is a mobile part.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core for the Core 3 201TE and 2 MB per core for the Core 5 220H. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared for the Core 3 201TE and 18 MB shared for the Core 5 220H.

PCIe lanes differ: the Core 3 201TE supports Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 220H supports Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ, with the Core 3 201TE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core 5 220H using Iris Xe Graphics 80EU.

ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201TE but absent on the Core 5 220H. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 76.8 GB/s. The release dates are about a month apart: the Core 3 201TE released on 2025-01-12, and the Core 5 220H released on 2024-12-17. The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134, and the Core 5 220H has a launch MSRP of $342.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, belonging to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry.

The die size is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 163 mm². The Core 5 220H has no die size data. Transistor counts are not recorded for either processor.

The core architectures differ in their configuration. The Core 3 201TE is a 4-core, 8-thread design with 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3 cache. The Core 5 220H is a 12-core, 16-thread design with 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L2 and L3 caches on the Core 5 220H align with its higher core count.

The memory controller on the Core 3 201TE supports ECC, which the Core 5 220H does not. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode. The Core 3 201TE has a measured memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 5 220H has no bandwidth figure.

The PCIe implementation differs: the Core 3 201TE provides 16 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 220H provides 8 Gen 5 lanes. The integrated GPU also differs, with the Core 3 201TE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core 5 220H using Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU is a more capable iGPU, which is typical for a mobile-focused part.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are marked as Active in production status. The part numbers are SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 201TE and SRQ6SQ5MM for the Core 5 220H.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 220H wins in every measured benchmark category because it is the only one with recorded scores. Its multi-threaded results are strong: Cinebench R23 multicore at 11198 and PassMark multithread at 21884. The 12-core, 16-thread configuration with 18 MB of L3 cache is well suited for rendering, compression, and encryption workloads. The PassMark data compression score of 247921 and data encryption score of 15216 support this interpretation.

The Core 5 220H also performs well in single-threaded tasks, with a PassMark single-thread score of 3405 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1853. Its 4.90 GHz boost clock is the highest of the two parts. The nearest rival data shows it trading within 0.3 percent of the AMD EPYC 7203P, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS, Intel Xeon E-2436, and Intel Core i5-12600, confirming it sits in a competitive performance band.

The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark data, so its wins cannot be quantified from measured performance. Its advantages exist only in specification fields: it supports ECC memory, has a larger PCIe lane count at 16 Gen 5 lanes versus 8, and uses the desktop Socket 1700 rather than the mobile BGA 1744. Its lower launch MSRP of $134 versus $342 is a recorded fact, but the database does not provide performance data to justify a performance-oriented recommendation.

For workloads that demand multi-threading, the Core 5 220H is the only part with evidence of capability. For desktop builds that need ECC memory support or more PCIe lanes, the Core 3 201TE has those features on paper. The 50th percentile ranking of the Core 3 201TE versus the 80th percentile of the Core 5 220H indicates a substantial gap in overall performance standing, but without benchmark scores for the Core 3 201TE, the exact magnitude of that gap in individual workloads remains unmeasured.