Intel Core 3 100UL vs Intel Core 5 221E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Core 3 100UL and the Intel Core 5 221E. The benchmark database shows zero wins for the Core 3 100UL and zero wins for the Core 5 221E in this pairing, meaning no comparative tests were logged for these two processors side by side. The Core 3 100UL has no benchmark scores listed in its entry, while the Core 5 221E carries a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results.

The Core 5 221E's measured performance can be read against its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score is 40,144, which places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (40,081) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (40,048). It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 270 (40,246) by 0.3% and the Intel Core i9-13905H (40,313) by 0.4%. These deltas are small, indicating the Core 5 221E sits in a tightly contested performance cluster.

Looking at the Core 5 221E's individual benchmark scores, its Cinebench R23 multicore result is 25,933, while the single-core result is 3,661. In Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 10,891 and single-core is 1,537. The older Cinebench R15 run produced 2,613 multicore and 368 single-core. PassMark results include 117,813 in integer math, 79,028 in floating point math, 32,4285 in data compression, 19,205 in data encryption, and 18,216 in extended instructions. The PassMark multithread score is 30,510, single-thread is 4,147, physics is 2,230, and random string sorting is 37,686. Prime number finding scored 173.

The Core 3 100UL has no logged benchmarks, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. The percentile data does offer context: the Core 3 100UL sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 221E ranks at the 87th percentile. That gap suggests the Core 5 221E occupies a substantially higher performance tier, but without direct test scores for the Core 3 100UL, a precise head-to-head percentage cannot be derived.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their architectural lineage. The Core 3 100UL is built on Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS, and belongs to the Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. The Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. Both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node, and both are produced by Intel's own foundry.

Core count and thread count show a significant split. The Core 3 100UL provides 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 221E provides 14 cores and 20 threads. That is more than double the core count and more than double the thread count for the Core 5 221E. Clock speeds also differ: the Core 3 100UL has a base clock of 1.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, whereas the Core 5 221E starts at 2.70 GHz base and reaches 5.20 GHz boost. The Core 5 221E runs higher at both ends of the frequency range.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. Both list L1 cache at 80 KB per core. The L2 cache is 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 100UL versus 2 MB per core on the Core 5 221E. Shared L3 cache is 10 MB on the Core 3 100UL and 24 MB on the Core 5 221E. The die size is only recorded for the Core 5 221E at 257 mm². Transistor counts are not listed for either processor.

The Core 5 221E supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 100UL does not. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 5 221E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 3 100UL has no bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity differs notably: the Core 3 100UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 221E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the Core 3 100UL uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Core 5 221E uses UHD Graphics 730.

Thermal design power is not identical: the Core 3 100UL is rated at 15 W, while the Core 5 221E is rated at 65 W. Both use the Intel Socket 1700 and are desktop market segment parts. Both are listed as active production and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the Core 5 221E wins on every measurable dimension. Its core count advantage (14 versus 6), thread count advantage (20 versus 8), higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 1.20 GHz), higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 4.50 GHz), larger L2 cache per core (2 MB versus 1.25 MB), and larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 10 MB) all point to superiority in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The 87th percentile ranking versus the 50th percentile reinforces this.

The Core 5 221E also wins on platform features. It supports ECC memory, which the Core 3 100UL lacks. It provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core 3 100UL is limited to PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Its memory bandwidth is recorded at 89.6 GB/s, a figure that has no counterpart for the Core 3 100UL. These differences matter for workloads that depend on memory throughput or high-bandwidth I/O.

The Core 3 100UL does have one advantage: power consumption. Its 15 W TDP is far lower than the 65 W TDP of the Core 5 221E. For systems where heat dissipation and power delivery are constrained, the Core 3 100UL would be the more efficient choice, though the database does not provide efficiency metrics or power draw measurements beyond the TDP figures. The Core 3 100UL's lower base clock of 1.20 GHz also suggests it idles at a lower frequency, though no idle power data is present.

The Core 5 221E's release date is later (2025-01-12) compared to the Core 3 100UL (2024-04-07), indicating a newer product generation. The Core 5 221E has a launch MSRP of $232, while the Core 3 100UL has no launch MSRP recorded.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 (Core 3 100UL) versus 14 (Core 5 221E)
• Threads: 8 versus 20
• Base clock: 1.20 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.50 GHz versus 5.20 GHz
• TDP: 15 W versus 65 W
• Architecture: Raptor Lake versus null (Bartlett Lake codename)
• Codename: Raptor Lake-PS versus Bartlett Lake
• Generation: Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) versus Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)
• Die size: not recorded versus 257 mm²
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 10 MB shared versus 24 MB shared
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded versus 89.6 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes versus Gen 5, 16 lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 64EU versus UHD Graphics 730
• Release date: 2024-04-07 versus 2025-01-12
• Launch MSRP: null versus $232
• Part number: unknown versus SRQDVQ659
• Percentile: 50 versus 87
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 40,144

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (Intel), 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 unlock status (false).

FAQ

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 100UL does not.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Core 3 100UL boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the Core 5 221E boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Core 5 221E is 0.70 GHz higher.

Q: How do their PCIe capabilities differ?

A: The Core 3 100UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 221E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Core 3 100UL has a TDP of 15 W. The Core 5 221E has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: What are the integrated graphics on each?

A: The Core 3 100UL integrates UHD Graphics 64EU. The Core 5 221E integrates UHD Graphics 730.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core 5 221E for any workload that benefits from additional cores, threads, cache, or higher clock speeds. Its 14 cores and 20 threads, combined with a 5.20 GHz boost clock and 24 MB L3 cache, position it as a significantly more capable processor. The 87th percentile ranking versus the 50th percentile for the Core 3 100UL confirms this performance gap. Benchmark results for the Core 5 221E, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 25,933 and a PassMark multithread score of 30,510, demonstrate strong multi-threaded throughput. Its nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, are separated by only 0.2% in average score, placing the Core 5 221E in competitive company.

The Core 3 100UL, with no benchmark data and a 50th percentile ranking, appears suited for lower-power desktop systems. Its 15 W TDP is a clear advantage for thermally constrained builds. The absence of ECC support, the older PCIe Gen 4 interface with only 8 lanes, and the smaller cache hierarchy all indicate a more modest platform.

The release dates show the Core 5 221E is newer by roughly nine months. The Core 5 221E also has a recorded launch MSRP of $232, while the Core 3 100UL has none. The choice between the two depends on whether the workload requires the Core 5 221E's parallel processing capacity, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 5 bandwidth, or whether the Core 3 100UL's 15 W power envelope is the primary constraint. The measured data supports selecting the Core 5 221E for performance-oriented tasks, while the Core 3 100UL remains the only option for the lowest-power Socket 1700 builds.