Intel Core 3 100HL vs Intel Core i5-11600 Comparison

The Intel Core 3 100HL and Intel Core i5-11600 occupy different generational and architectural spaces, yet their benchmark results show a surprisingly competitive landscape. The i5-11600, a Rocket Lake desktop part, wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Core 3 100HL, a Raptor Lake-PS processor, takes 5. The overall average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the i5-11600 records 24563, which is 4.3% higher than the Core 3 100HL’s 23545. The percentile rankings reinforce this, with the i5-11600 sitting at the 77th percentile of all CPUs and the Core 3 100HL at the 76th. This is a narrow margin, and the distribution of wins reveals distinct strengths that go beyond the overall score.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-11600 dominates the classic rendering and integer workloads. In the Cinebench suite, it wins every single test, from the R15 multicore (1538 vs 1506) to the R23 singlecore (2155 vs 2110). The deltas here are consistent, hovering around -2.1% to -2.3% in favor of the i5-11600. Beyond Cinebench, this Rocket Lake chip also leads in PassMark integer math (60158 vs 56308, a 6.4% advantage), data compression (218062 vs 202225, a 7.3% lead), and extended instructions (15698 vs 12463, a decisive 20.6% victory). It is also faster at finding prime numbers (56 vs 48) and random string sorting (25178 vs 23223). These wins point to a processor that handles traditional compute tasks, particularly those relying on high single-thread clock speeds and mature instruction pipelines, with superior efficiency.

The Intel Core 3 100HL, meanwhile, carves out its victories in memory-sensitive and floating-point workloads. The most notable win is in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 42108 against the i5-11600’s 35478, a substantial 18.7% lead. It also wins data encryption (11964 vs 11060, an 8.2% margin), physics (928 vs 891, a 4.2% advantage), and the single-thread PassMark test (3735 vs 3284, a 13.7% lead). The single-thread PassMark result is particularly interesting because it contradicts the Cinebench single-core results, suggesting the Core 3 100HL’s architecture is better optimized for certain instruction patterns. This split indicates the Core 3 100HL excels when the workload benefits from its newer memory architecture and core design, while the i5-11600 retains an edge in more conventional, clock-driven scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different silicon. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Intel Core i5-11600 uses Rocket Lake on a 14 nm process. This generational gap explains many of the performance characteristics. The Core 3 100HL features 8 cores and 12 threads, a configuration that suggests a hybrid or asymmetric core layout typical of Raptor Lake-PS parts. The i5-11600, in contrast, has 6 cores and 12 threads, a standard homogeneous design for its generation. The base clocks differ significantly: the Core 3 100HL runs at 2.10 GHz, while the i5-11600 runs at 2.80 GHz. However, boost clocks are closer, with the Core 3 100HL reaching 4.60 GHz and the i5-11600 hitting 4.80 GHz. This means the i5-11600 has a higher floor and ceiling, but the Core 3 100HL’s newer architecture likely compensates in specific workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both share 12 MB of L3 cache, but the L2 cache differs notably: the Core 3 100HL has 2 MB per core, while the i5-11600 has 512 KB per core. This gives the Core 3 100HL a much larger total L2 cache, which is a plausible reason for its strong floating-point and encryption performance, as those workloads often benefit from larger, faster local storage. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core. Memory support is another differentiator: the Core 3 100HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the i5-11600 is limited to DDR4. The i5-11600 does list a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, a figure not provided for the Core 3 100HL, but the latter’s DDR5 compatibility suggests a potential bandwidth advantage in practice. The Core 3 100HL also integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 48 execution units, while the i5-11600 has no integrated graphics listed. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Core 3 100HL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the i5-11600 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, making the i5-11600 more suitable for expandability.

Thermal and platform considerations are stark. The Core 3 100HL has a TDP of 45 W, making it a lower-power part, while the i5-11600 has a TDP of 65 W. The Core 3 100HL uses Intel Socket 1700, whereas the i5-11600 uses Intel Socket 1200. The i5-11600 is marked as end-of-life, while the Core 3 100HL is active. The i5-11600’s die size is 276 mm², a figure not available for the Core 3 100HL. The release dates also differ, with the i5-11600 arriving in March 2021 and the Core 3 100HL in April 2024, a gap that highlights the architectural leap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the most consistent indicator of the i5-11600’s advantage. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i5-11600 scores 15269 against the Core 3 100HL’s 14948, a 2.1% difference. The single-core R23 test shows a similar pattern: 2155 for the i5-11600 versus 2110 for the Core 3 100HL, again a 2.1% lead. The R20 and R15 tests mirror this exactly, with the i5-11600 winning by 2.1% in multicore and 2.3% in the R15 single-core test. These are small but consistent margins, indicating that the i5-11600’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 4.60 GHz) gives it a reliable edge in lightly threaded and fully threaded rendering tasks.

Where the Core 3 100HL pushes back, it does so decisively. The PassMark floating point math score is the largest single delta: 42108 for the Core 3 100HL versus 35478 for the i5-11600, a 18.7% swing. This is not a marginal win; it is a category where the newer architecture clearly outperforms. Data encryption also favors the Core 3 100HL by 8.2%, and the physics test shows a 4.2% lead. The PassMark single-thread test is another clear win for the Core 3 100HL, scoring 3735 versus 3284, a 13.7% advantage. This is a strong counterpoint to the Cinebench single-core results, suggesting that the two benchmarks measure different aspects of single-thread performance, with the Core 3 100HL’s newer core design excelling in integer and mixed workloads.

The i5-11600’s biggest win is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 15698 against 12463, a 20.6% lead. This is its most dominant performance area, likely reflecting a mature implementation of SIMD and cryptography instructions. Data compression also favors the i5-11600 by 7.3%, and random string sorting by 7.8%. In the overall multithread PassMark test, the i5-11600 wins by a narrow 1.9%, scoring 17918 versus 17586. The data shows a clear pattern: the i5-11600 leads in most conventional CPU benchmarks, but the Core 3 100HL wins in specific, modern workloads that benefit from its larger L2 cache and architectural improvements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-11600 has an average benchmark score of 24563, while the Intel Core 3 100HL scores 23545, giving the i5-11600 a 4.3% overall advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i5-11600 scores 15269, and the Intel Core 3 100HL scores 14948. The i5-11600 leads by 2.1%.

Q: In which workload does the Intel Core 3 100HL have its largest win?

A: The Core 3 100HL wins PassMark floating point math by 18.7%, scoring 42108 against the i5-11600’s 35478.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has 8 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i5-11600 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 100HL support newer memory types?

A: Yes, the Core 3 100HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the i5-11600 only supports DDR4.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core 3 100HL has a TDP of 45 W, compared to the Intel Core i5-11600’s 65 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. The Intel Core i5-11600 is the better choice for general-purpose computing, particularly for users running Cinebench-style rendering, integer math, data compression, and extended instruction workloads. Its consistent 2% lead in Cinebench and dominant 20.6% win in extended instructions make it the safer pick for traditional productivity and content creation tasks. It also benefits from a higher boost clock, 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, and a larger PCIe lane allocation, though it is limited to DDR4 memory.

The Intel Core 3 100HL is the more efficient and modern part, with its 45 W TDP, DDR5 support, and integrated Iris Xe Graphics. Its wins in floating point math (18.7% ahead), data encryption (8.2% ahead), and PassMark single-thread performance (13.7% ahead) indicate it is better suited for workloads that leverage newer architecture features, larger L2 cache, and memory bandwidth. It is also the active product, while the i5-11600 is end-of-life. For users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or specific encryption and floating-point tasks, the Core 3 100HL is the logical selection. For those who need the highest raw throughput in conventional benchmarks and do not mind the older platform, the i5-11600 remains the stronger performer.