Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison is limited, as the Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the Core 9 273PQE has a full suite of results. This asymmetry means the analysis must focus on what the Core 9 273PQE demonstrates, with the Core 3 201TE serving as a lower-tier reference point from its specifications rather than measured performance.

The Core 9 273PQE posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 points, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its single-core result in the same test is 5532 points. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score reaches 16459, while the single-core score is 2323. The older Cinebench R15 workload shows 3950 multi-core and 557 single-core.

PassMark workloads further characterize the Core 9 273PQE. Data compression scores 585752, while data encryption reaches 29636. Extended instructions produce 38743, and finding prime numbers yields 198. Floating point math delivers 125546, integer math 164629, and multithread performance 46107. Physics processing scores 2754, random string sorting 53167, and single-thread performance 4573.

The average benchmark score for the Core 9 273PQE is 66099. The nearest rivals in the database are closely matched. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at 66159, a delta of -0.1 percent, meaning the Core 9 273PQE is essentially tied with it. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D scores 65914, putting the Core 9 273PQE 0.3 percent ahead. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus records 66855, a delta of -1.1 percent, indicating the Core 9 273PQE trails slightly. The AMD EPYC 4465P reaches 66925, a delta of -1.2 percent.

The Core 3 201TE, with no benchmark entries, cannot be directly compared on any measured workload. Its specifications, however, indicate a substantially lower ceiling. The database records no wins for either processor in head-to-head tests, as no head-to-head benchmark data exists for this pair.

FAQ

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each processor?

A: The Core 9 273PQE sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 201TE is in the 50th percentile, though this ranking is based on its specifications rather than measured benchmark scores, as no benchmarks are recorded for it.

Q: How does the Core 9 273PQE compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66099. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 0.1 percent lower, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is 0.3 percent lower, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 1.1 percent higher, and the AMD EPYC 4465P is 1.2 percent higher.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 9 273PQE offers triple the cores and triple the threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE boosts to 5.90 GHz, while the Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz. The base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core 9 273PQE and 2.90 GHz for the Core 3 201TE.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core 3 201TE and the Core 9 273PQE have ECC memory support listed as true. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: What integrated graphics do they carry?

A: The Core 3 201TE has UHD Graphics 730. The Core 9 273PQE has UHD Graphics 770.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Bartlett Lake codename and are built by Intel on the same 10 nm process node. The generation field lists both as Core 3 and Core 9 under Bartlett Lake, indicating a common architectural family. The die size differs, with the Core 3 201TE measuring 163 mm², while the Core 9 273PQE has no die size recorded in the database.

The cache hierarchy shows a structural divergence. The L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core for both. The L2 cache differs, with the Core 3 201TE providing 1.25 MB per core and the Core 9 273PQE providing 2 MB per core. The L3 cache is shared and markedly different: the Core 3 201TE has 12 MB shared, while the Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB shared. This triple-sized L3 cache aligns with the triple-core count of the Core 9 273PQE.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The Core 3 201TE lists 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 9 273PQE lists 89.6 GB/s. The higher bandwidth on the Core 9 273PQE suggests a wider memory subsystem or higher supported memory speeds, both of which contribute to workload performance.

The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 5 with 16 lanes for CPU only. Both processors use Intel Socket 1700 and are desktop market segment parts. Both are marked as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates are distinct. The Core 3 201TE released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08, over a year later. The part numbers are SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 201TE and SA4Q9 for the Core 9 273PQE.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most fundamental: 4 cores for the Core 3 201TE versus 12 cores for the Core 9 273PQE. Threads follow at 8 versus 24. Base clock differs by 0.50 GHz, with the Core 9 273PQE at 3.40 GHz and the Core 3 201TE at 2.90 GHz. Boost clock differs by 1.30 GHz, with the Core 9 273PQE at 5.90 GHz and the Core 3 201TE at 4.60 GHz.

TDP is a significant separator. The Core 3 201TE has a 45 W TDP, while the Core 9 273PQE has a 125 W TDP. The Core 9 273PQE consumes nearly three times the power budget, reflecting its larger core count and higher clocks.

L2 cache per core is 1.25 MB on the Core 3 201TE versus 2 MB on the Core 9 273PQE. L3 cache is 12 MB versus 36 MB. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s.

Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201TE and UHD Graphics 770 on the Core 9 273PQE. The die size is recorded for the Core 3 201TE at 163 mm², with no die size for the Core 9 273PQE.

The launch MSRP is $134 for the Core 3 201TE and $589 for the Core 9 273PQE. The Core 3 201TE released on 2025-01-12, and the Core 9 273PQE released on 2026-03-08.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Core 9 273PQE, with its 93rd percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 66099, sits near the top of the database. Its nearest rivals are all within a 1.2 percent band, indicating that the Core 9 273PQE is competitive with high-end desktop and workstation parts. The 0.3 percent lead over the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is a notable data point, as that rival is typically a flagship-class processor.

The Core 3 201TE, by contrast, has no benchmark scores. Its 50th percentile ranking, derived from its specifications, places it in the middle of the database. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with a 4.60 GHz boost clock and 12 MB L3 cache describes a modest desktop processor. Its 45 W TDP positions it as a low-power part, suitable for systems where heat and power constraints matter more than raw throughput.

The architecture is shared, with both using Bartlett Lake on a 10 nm Intel process. The differences are quantitative rather than qualitative: more cores, more cache, higher clocks, and a higher power envelope on the Core 9 273PQE. The Core 3 201TE has a smaller die at 163 mm², consistent with a lower core count. Both support ECC memory, DDR4 and DDR5, and Gen 5 PCIe with 16 lanes.

The data indicates that the Core 9 273PQE is the stronger processor for any multi-threaded workload. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 39190 and PassMark multithread score of 46107 demonstrate substantial parallel throughput. The single-core scores of 5532 in R23 and 4573 in PassMark also exceed what the Core 3 201TE could plausibly deliver given its lower boost clock and smaller cache.

The Core 3 201TE, without measured results, cannot be verified against any workload. Its specification suggests it is a capable entry-level desktop part, but the database contains no evidence of its performance. The choice between these two processors hinges on whether the workload requires the Core 9 273PQE's 12-core parallel capability, or whether a lower-power 4-core part suffices.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in every measured benchmark category in the database, though this statement must be qualified by the absence of Core 3 201TE scores. For multi-threaded workloads such as Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 39190, the 12-core configuration provides a clear advantage. The PassMark multithread score of 46107 further confirms this strength in parallel processing tasks.

Data compression, scoring 585752, and integer math, scoring 164629, are particularly strong for the Core 9 273PQE. These workloads benefit from the combination of 12 cores, 24 threads, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Floating point math at 125546 and extended instructions at 38743 also indicate robust compute capability.

The Core 9 273PQE also wins in single-thread performance based on its clocks. A boost of 5.90 GHz is the highest among the two processors, and the PassMark single-thread score of 4573 reflects that. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5532 places it well above typical mid-range processors.

The Core 3 201TE wins in power efficiency. With a 45 W TDP versus 125 W for the Core 9 273PQE, the Core 3 201TE consumes significantly less power. For systems with limited cooling or power delivery, this is a meaningful advantage. The smaller die size of 163 mm² also suggests a simpler production footprint.

The Core 3 201TE also wins on the basis of lower launch MSRP, at $134 versus $589. This price difference is substantial, though the performance gap is also substantial. The Core 3 201TE has the same memory support, ECC capability, and PCIe configuration, meaning it does not sacrifice platform features.

For single-threaded light workloads, the Core 3 201TE's 4.60 GHz boost clock is respectable, though the Core 9 273PQE still exceeds it. The database does not record any benchmark where the Core 3 201TE wins, as no benchmarks exist for it. The wins for the Core 3 201TE are therefore derived from its specifications: power consumption, die size, and launch price.

The Core 9 273PQE, with the 93rd percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 66099, is the clear performance winner. The Core 3 201TE is the efficiency and cost winner, but without measured performance data, its capabilities remain unverified.