Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Intel Core 3 201TE and Intel Core 7 240H occupy different ends of the Intel lineup, and the recorded data confirms a decisive performance gap. The Core 7 240H is a higher-tier mobile processor with substantially more compute resources, while the Core 3 201TE is a desktop part aimed at basic workloads. Benchmark results for the Core 7 240H are present in the database, while the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores. This analysis relies on the available measurements and the architectural specifications of both processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two processors. However, the Core 7 240H has a complete set of benchmark scores, while the Core 3 201TE has none recorded. This absence of data for the Core 3 201TE means direct comparisons are not possible from our measurements. The Core 7 240H's performance can be contextualized through its average benchmark score of 31,483 and its percentile ranking of 82, indicating it outperforms 82% of all CPUs in the database.

The Core 7 240H delivers strong multi-threaded results. In Cinebench R23, it scores 15,764 in the multi-core test and 1,719 in the single-core test. The Cinebench R20 results show 8,562 multi-core and 1,208 single-core. In Cinebench R15, the scores are 2,360 multi-core and 249 single-core. These figures indicate a capable processor for both threaded workloads and single-thread responsiveness.

PassMark tests reveal specific strengths for the Core 7 240H. The data compression score is 271,774, while data encryption reaches 15,155. Extended instructions score 16,897, and floating point math achieves 58,905. Integer math scores 80,396, and multithread performance is 23,975. The physics test shows 1,723, and random string sorting reaches 28,866. Single-thread performance in PassMark is 3,782.

The nearest rivals for the Core 7 240H, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 with an average score of 31,473, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX with 31,495, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H with 31,508, and the Intel Core i5-13500 with 31,510. The delta percentages are 0, 0, -0.1, and -0.1 respectively, meaning the Core 7 240H is essentially tied with these processors in overall average score. This puts the Core 7 240H in a competitive position among mid-range to high-end processors.

The Core 3 201TE has an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50, which reflects the absence of recorded measurements rather than actual performance. Without benchmark data, the Core 3 201TE cannot be compared numerically to the Core 7 240H or any other processor in the database.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 240H have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the Core 7 240H has 17 recorded benchmark scores across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark tests, with an average benchmark score of 31,483 and a percentile rank of 82.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201TE have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Core 3 201TE has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed.

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

A: The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Core 3 201TE has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 7 240H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 240H does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectures and target different market segments. The Core 3 201TE is a desktop processor using the Bartlett Lake codename, belonging to the Core 3 generation. The Core 7 240H is a mobile processor based on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H, and falls under the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation.

Both processors use a 10 nm process node from Intel, and both have an L1 cache of 80 KB per core. The L2 cache differs, with the Core 3 201TE having 1.25 MB per core and the Core 7 240H having 2 MB per core. The L3 cache is 12 MB shared for the Core 3 201TE and 24 MB shared for the Core 7 240H.

Memory support is identical in type, with both supporting DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The memory bandwidth is listed as 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201TE, while no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Core 7 240H. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201TE but absent on the Core 7 240H.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Core 3 201TE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 240H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU.

The sockets are different as well. The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, whereas the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744. This reflects the desktop versus mobile distinction, with the BGA socket being soldered in laptops.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the Core 7 240H is the stronger processor in terms of raw compute capability. With 10 cores and 16 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads, the Core 7 240H has 2.5 times the core count and double the thread count. The boost clock of 5.20 GHz exceeds the 4.60 GHz of the Core 3 201TE, and the L3 cache is doubled at 24 MB versus 12 MB.

The Core 7 240H's benchmark scores confirm its performance class. A Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,764 and a PassMark multithread score of 23,975 indicate strong sustained throughput. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 1,719 reflects solid per-thread performance. The average benchmark score of 31,483 places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database.

The Core 3 201TE, with no benchmark scores recorded, cannot be quantitatively assessed. Its specifications suggest a modest desktop processor suited for basic tasks. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with a 4.60 GHz boost clock and 12 MB L3 cache is adequate for entry-level computing but does not compete with the Core 7 240H's multi-threaded capabilities.

For users needing multi-core performance for rendering, compilation, or heavy multitasking, the Core 7 240H is the clear choice based on the recorded data. The Core 3 201TE, being a desktop part with ECC support and more PCIe lanes, may serve specific use cases requiring those features, but its performance envelope is far below that of the Core 7 240H.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two processors.

Core and thread counts: The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Base clock: The Core 3 201TE runs at 2.90 GHz, while the Core 7 240H runs at 2.50 GHz. The Core 3 201TE has a higher base clock despite having fewer cores.

Boost clock: The Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 240H has a significantly higher boost clock.

Socket: The Core 3 201TE uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core 7 240H uses Intel BGA 1744. This makes the Core 3 201TE a desktop part and the Core 7 240H a mobile part.

Codename: The Core 3 201TE is Bartlett Lake, while the Core 7 240H is Raptor Lake-H. The Core 7 240H is listed under Raptor Lake Refresh generation.

L2 cache: The Core 3 201TE has 1.25 MB per core, while the Core 7 240H has 2 MB per core. This gives the Core 7 240H a larger L2 cache per core.

L3 cache: The Core 3 201TE has 12 MB shared, while the Core 7 240H has 24 MB shared. The Core 7 240H has double the L3 cache.

Memory bandwidth: The Core 3 201TE has 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7 240H has no listed bandwidth figure.

ECC memory: The Core 3 201TE supports ECC, while the Core 7 240H does not.

PCIe lanes: The Core 3 201TE has 16 lanes with Gen 5, while the Core 7 240H has 8 lanes with Gen 5. The Core 3 201TE offers more PCIe lanes.

Integrated graphics: The Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. The Iris Xe implementation is a more capable integrated GPU.

Release date: The Core 3 201TE was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 7 240H was released on 2024-12-17. The Core 7 240H is slightly older in release date.

Die size: The Core 3 201TE has a die size of 163 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Core 7 240H.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 7 240H wins in all performance-oriented categories based on the recorded data. Its 10 cores and 16 threads provide superior multi-threading, as evidenced by the Cinebench and PassMark scores. The higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz gives it an advantage in single-threaded tasks, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,719 and a PassMark single-thread score of 3,782. The doubled L3 cache of 24 MB helps with data-heavy workloads.

The Core 3 201TE has specific advantages in platform features. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for reliability in certain server or workstation environments. It offers 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, double the 8 lanes of the Core 7 240H, which is beneficial for systems with multiple high-bandwidth expansion cards. The 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is explicitly listed, providing a known figure for memory throughput. The desktop socket 1700 allows for easier upgrades and cooling solutions compared to the soldered BGA 1744.

For workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, or running many virtual machines, the Core 7 240H's core count and thread count make it the appropriate choice. For lightweight desktop usage, office applications, or systems requiring ECC memory and extensive PCIe expansion, the Core 3 201TE offers relevant features despite its lower compute potential.

The Core 7 240H's average benchmark score of 31,483 places it in the 82nd percentile, while the Core 3 201TE has no benchmark data. This means any performance comparison must favor the Core 7 240H, as it has measurable results confirming its capabilities. The Core 3 201TE's specifications, particularly the 4-core configuration, suggest it is designed for efficiency and simplicity rather than raw performance.