Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 3 201TE and Intel Core 7 160HL are both 45W desktop parts on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but they serve distinctly different positions in the lineup. The Core 3 201TE is a 4-core, 8-thread processor with a 2.90 GHz base clock and 4.60 GHz boost clock. The Core 7 160HL is a 14-core, 20-thread processor with a 2.50 GHz base clock and 5.20 GHz boost clock.

The recorded data shows the Core 7 160HL should be the pick for workloads that scale with core count. Its 14 cores and 20 threads give it a 10-core and 12-thread advantage over the Core 3 201TE. That is a massive gap in parallel headroom. Applications like video encoding, 3D rendering, compilation, and heavy multitasking will favor the Core 7 160HL.

The Core 3 201TE is the pick for users who need a simpler, lower-complexity system. It has half the cores of the Core 7 160HL in terms of physical core count, but it maintains the same 45W TDP. The Core 3 201TE also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 160HL does not. For a system that needs error-correcting memory, the Core 3 201TE is the only choice between these two.

Both processors sit at the 50th percentile against all CPUs in the database. That means neither is a top-tier performer, but both are squarely in the midrange of recorded results. The Core 3 201TE has a launch MSRP of $134. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture and the Raptor Lake-PS codename. The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The Core 7 160HL has a higher boost clock by 0.60 GHz, which matters for single-threaded responsiveness.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 160HL wins in multi-threaded throughput. The 14-core, 20-thread configuration is a clear advantage for any workload that can use more than 8 threads. The larger L3 cache, 24 MB shared versus 12 MB shared, also helps when working sets exceed the smaller cache capacity. The Core 7 160HL additionally carries the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated GPU, which is a more capable graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 730 found on the Core 3 201TE.

The Core 3 201TE wins on ECC memory support. The database records ECC support as true for the Core 3 201TE and false for the Core 7 160HL. That is a hard feature difference. In a NAS, a small server, or a workstation where memory corruption is unacceptable, the Core 3 201TE is the viable option.

The Core 3 201TE also delivers a higher base clock, 2.90 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. In lightly threaded tasks that stay at base clocks, the Core 3 201TE starts from a higher frequency. But the Core 7 160HL's 5.20 GHz boost clock is likely to take over when the workload asks for maximum single-core speed.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core 7 160HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes. For a system with one high-bandwidth Gen 5 storage device or a Gen 5 graphics card, the Core 3 201TE is the better match. For a system that needs fewer lanes and is fine with Gen 4, the Core 7 160HL is acceptable but more limited.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core 3 201TE is listed under the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture and Raptor Lake-PS codename. Despite the different codenames, both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node.

The core configurations are the largest split. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating a traditional uniform core layout. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads, which implies a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores, typical of the Raptor Lake generation. The thread count of 20 on 14 cores means some cores do not have hyper-threading, consistent with a hybrid core design.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both parts use 80 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 201TE and 2 MB per core on the Core 7 160HL. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared on the Core 3 201TE and 24 MB shared on the Core 7 160HL. The Core 7 160HL therefore has both a larger per-core L2 and a larger shared L3.

Memory support is identical in type, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5, and both using a dual-channel memory bus. The Core 3 201TE records a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC support is the key memory feature difference, present on the Core 3 201TE and absent on the Core 7 160HL.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe part is the more substantial GPU, with 96 execution units, which should deliver better media and light 3D performance.

The release dates differ by roughly nine months. The Core 7 160HL launched on 2024-04-07, and the Core 3 201TE launched on 2025-01-12. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160HL does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both use the Intel Socket 1700.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor have?

A: The Core 3 201TE has UHD Graphics 730. The Core 7 160HL has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core 7 160HL has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both the Core 3 201TE and the Core 7 160HL are built on Intel's 10 nm process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Core 3 201TE and the Core 7 160HL. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts are zero for both processors. The nearest rival data is also empty for both entries. As a result, the comparison must be drawn from the specification data rather than measured performance scores.

The biggest advantage for the Core 7 160HL is the core count. It offers 14 cores and 20 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads. That is 10 additional cores and 12 additional threads. Any parallel workload that scales well will see a large throughput advantage on the Core 7 160HL. The L3 cache doubles from 12 MB to 24 MB, and the L2 cache per core increases from 1.25 MB to 2 MB. The boost clock is also higher, 5.20 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, a 0.60 GHz advantage.

The biggest advantages for the Core 3 201TE are ECC support, PCIe generation and lane count, and base clock. The Core 3 201TE supports ECC, while the Core 7 160HL does not. The Core 3 201TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 160HL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The Core 3 201TE also has a higher base clock, 2.90 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, a 0.40 GHz advantage.

Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 76.8 GB/s. The Core 7 160HL has no recorded bandwidth figure, so a direct comparison in that metric is not possible from the data.

The integrated GPU comparison favors the Core 7 160HL. Iris Xe Graphics 96EU is a more capable integrated solution than UHD Graphics 730. For a system without a discrete GPU, the Core 7 160HL should provide better display output and media acceleration.

Both processors are locked, with multiplier unlocked set to false on both. Neither allows overclocking through the multiplier. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all CPUs, meaning they are exactly average in the database's distribution of CPU performance.

The die size is recorded only for the Core 3 201TE at 163 mm². The Core 7 160HL has no die size recorded. Transistor counts are not recorded for either processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Cores: Core 3 201TE has 4 cores. Core 7 160HL has 14 cores.
• Threads: Core 3 201TE has 8 threads. Core 7 160HL has 20 threads.
• Base clock: Core 3 201TE is 2.90 GHz. Core 7 160HL is 2.50 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 3 201TE is 4.60 GHz. Core 7 160HL is 5.20 GHz.
• Architecture: Core 3 201TE has no architecture listed. Core 7 160HL is Raptor Lake.
• Codename: Core 3 201TE is Bartlett Lake. Core 7 160HL is Raptor Lake-PS.
• Generation: Core 3 201TE is Core 3 (Bartlett Lake). Core 7 160HL is Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS).
• Die size: Core 3 201TE is 163 mm². Core 7 160HL is not recorded.
• L2 cache: Core 3 201TE is 1.25 MB per core. Core 7 160HL is 2 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 3 201TE is 12 MB shared. Core 7 160HL is 24 MB shared.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 3 201TE is 76.8 GB/s. Core 7 160HL is not recorded.
• ECC memory: Core 3 201TE is true. Core 7 160HL is false.
• PCIe: Core 3 201TE is Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only). Core 7 160HL is Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only).
• Integrated graphics: Core 3 201TE is UHD Graphics 730. Core 7 160HL is Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.
• Release date: Core 3 201TE is 2025-01-12. Core 7 160HL is 2024-04-07.
• Launch MSRP: Core 3 201TE is $134. Core 7 160HL is not recorded.
• Part number: Core 3 201TE is SRPKDQ5CK. Core 7 160HL is unknown.

Fields that are identical include the manufacturer (Intel), TDP (45W both), socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false for both).