Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different roles. The Intel Core 5 211E wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 100HL takes only 2. That is a lopsided result, but the two wins for the Core 3 are not trivial. They land in passmark_find_prime_numbers and passmark_physics, which are specific workloads rather than general throughput measures.

The Core 5 211E dominates every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. It also wins every PassMark test except the two noted above. The single-threaded PassMark score shows a modest advantage for the Core 5, only 6.8% ahead, while the multi-core PassMark test shows a much larger gap of 26.2%. This pattern suggests the Core 5 gains most of its advantage from additional cores and higher sustained throughput rather than from a dramatically faster single core.

The Core 3 100HL wins passmark_physics by 32.2%, which is a substantial margin. Physics simulations often respond to memory latency and cache behavior differently than raw compute workloads. The Core 3 also wins passmark_find_prime_numbers by 11.6%. Prime number finding is typically sensitive to integer division and branch prediction. These two wins indicate the Core 3 retains some architectural strengths despite losing the overall throughput battle.

For use-case planning, the data indicates the Core 5 211E is the stronger choice for rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. The Core 3 100HL is preferable only in workloads similar to prime number finding and physics simulation. Most general productivity and content creation tasks would favor the Core 5 based on the recorded scores.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural families despite sharing the Intel Socket 1700. The Core 3 100HL uses Raptor Lake with the Raptor Lake-PS codename and is listed as a Core 3 generation part. The Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake and is listed as a Core 5 generation part. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node and both are fabricated by Intel, so the fundamental transistor technology is the same.

Core counts differ significantly. The Core 3 has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads. That is 2 more cores and 4 more threads for the Core 5. The Core 5's additional threads come from a combination of more physical cores and likely hyper-threading across a larger core pool. The L3 cache also differs: the Core 3 has 12 MB shared, while the Core 5 has 20 MB shared. L1 and L2 cache are identical at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core respectively.

The Core 5 is listed with a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 3 has no die size recorded. The Core 5 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. This is a major connectivity difference. The Core 5 also supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 does not. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses, but the Core 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s while the Core 3 has no bandwidth figure listed.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 3 uses Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units. The Core 5 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Core 3's Iris Xe is generally a stronger iGPU solution for media and light graphics work, though the benchmark data here does not include graphics tests. The Core 5 supports ECC memory, which matters for embedded or reliability-focused systems. The Core 3 does not.

Release timing differs as well. The Core 3 has a release date of April 2024, while the Core 5 has a release date of January 2025. Both are marked as Active in production status, so neither is discontinued.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Core 5 211E wins by either 26.6% or 26.7%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 5 scores 2055 against 1506 for the Core 3. In R15 single-core, the Core 5 scores 289 against 212. R20 multi-core shows 8563 versus 6278, and R20 single-core shows 1208 versus 886. R23 multi-core shows 20389 versus 14948, and R23 single-core shows 2878 versus 2110. The uniformity of these deltas suggests the Core 5's advantage scales evenly between single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench loads, which points to a clock speed and IPC advantage rather than purely a core count advantage.

The PassMark suite shows larger gaps in some tests. The biggest delta is in passmark_extended_instructions, where the Core 5 leads by 42.3% with a score of 21592 against 12463. Data compression shows the Core 5 at 346757 versus 202225, a 41.7% lead. Encryption shows 17938 versus 11964, a 33.3% lead. Random string sorting shows 34308 versus 23223, a 32.3% lead. Floating point math shows 66402 versus 42108, a 36.6% lead. Integer math shows 88117 versus 56308, a 36.1% lead. These are substantial margins that indicate the Core 5 delivers far higher throughput in compute-heavy and data-intensive workloads.

The PassMark multi-thread test shows 23833 versus 17586, a 26.2% lead for the Core 5. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4006 versus 3735, only a 6.8% lead. This is a key data point: in single-threaded PassMark, the Core 5 is only modestly faster, but in multi-threaded and math-heavy tests, the gap widens considerably. This suggests the Core 5's extra cores and larger cache are the primary drivers of its overall advantage.

The Core 3's two wins are notable for their contrast. In passmark_find_prime_numbers, the Core 3 scores 48 against 43, an 11.6% win. In passmark_physics, the Core 3 scores 928 against 702, a 32.2% win. These are the only two tests where the Core 3 leads, and both are specialized workloads. The physics win is particularly large, indicating that the Core 3's architecture handles that specific simulation pattern better despite losing nearly every other test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields. The Core 3 has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 5 has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ: the Core 3 runs at 2.10 GHz, the Core 5 at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks differ: the Core 3 boosts to 4.60 GHz, the Core 5 to 4.90 GHz. TDP differs: the Core 3 is rated at 45 W, the Core 5 at 65 W.

The Core 3 uses Raptor Lake architecture with Raptor Lake-PS codename. The Core 5 uses Bartlett Lake codename with no architecture field recorded. Both use the 10 nm process node and Intel Socket 1700. The Core 5 has a die size of 257 mm², while the Core 3 has no die size recorded.

Cache configurations differ at L3. The Core 3 has 12 MB shared L3, while the Core 5 has 20 MB shared L3. L1 and L2 are the same at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core. The Core 5 has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 3 has none. The Core 5 supports ECC memory, the Core 3 does not.

PCIe capability differs significantly. The Core 3 uses Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Core 5 uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 has Iris Xe Graphics 48EU, the Core 5 has UHD Graphics 730. Release dates differ: the Core 3 launched in April 2024, the Core 5 in January 2025. The Core 5 has a launch MSRP of $221. The Core 3 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 100HL boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 211E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 100HL does not support ECC memory.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core 5 211E?

A: The Core 5 211E has 20 MB shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 100HL has 12 MB shared L3 cache. That is an 8 MB difference.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E wins with a score of 4006 against 3735 for the Core 3 100HL, a delta of 6.8%.

Q: What are the only two benchmarks where the Core 3 100HL wins?

A: The Core 3 100HL wins passmark_find_prime_numbers with a score of 48 against 43 and passmark_physics with a score of 928 against 702.

Q: How many threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 16 threads.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core 5 211E for almost all workloads. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 26.7%, and it wins most PassMark tests by margins ranging from 6.8% to 42.3%. Users who need strong multi-core rendering, data compression, encryption, or math throughput should select the Core 5 211E. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB L3 cache, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity give it a structural advantage in nearly every measured category.

The Intel Core 3 100HL does have two specific wins. Its 32.2% advantage in passmark_physics and 11.6% advantage in passmark_find_prime_numbers indicate that certain simulation or integer-heavy workloads may run better on this chip. The Core 3 also uses less power, with a 45 W TDP versus 65 W for the Core 5, and features Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, which is a different integrated graphics solution than the UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5. For systems where physics simulation is the primary task, the Core 3 may be the better fit despite its overall lower benchmark averages.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Core 3 sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 sits at the 86th percentile. The Core 5's average benchmark score of 37829 is far above the Core 3's 23545. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Intel Core i9-14901E, both within 0.2% of its average score. The Core 3's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U and Intel Core i5-11500, both within 0.7%. This placement confirms the Core 5 competes in a higher performance tier.

For most desktop workloads, the Core 5 211E is the stronger processor based on the data. For specialized physics or prime number workloads, the Core 3 100HL shows a measurable advantage. The choice depends on which workload pattern matches the system's primary use.