Intel Core 3 100UL vs Intel Core 5 223PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 223PE holds the only recorded benchmark scores in this comparison. The database contains no benchmark results for the Intel Core 3 100UL, so every quantitative comparison relies on the Core 5 223PE's measured performance across Cinebench and Passmark tests.

In Cinebench R15, the Core 5 223PE scores 2666 in multi-core and 376 in single-core. The R20 run shows 11111 multi-core and 1568 single-core. R23 delivers 26455 multi-core and 3734 single-core. These scores place the Core 5 223PE at the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which reflects a strong overall standing for a desktop processor.

The Passmark suite adds another layer of detail. Multi-thread performance reaches 31124, while single-thread scores 4219. Integer math hits 99819, floating point math reaches 76468, and extended instructions score 24672. Data compression records 346623, data encryption 18448, and random string sorting 35798. Physics tests show 2493, and prime number finding scores 159.

For the Core 3 100UL, the database lists no benchmark entries, no average score, and no percentile rank beyond a neutral 50th percentile placeholder. Its avgBenchmarkScore is 0, meaning the system has no measured data to compare against the Core 5 223PE's 40585 average. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and winsA and winsB both show 0, indicating no direct comparison was recorded.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 223PE provide context for its scores. The Intel Core 7 253PE averages 40557, which is 0.1% lower. The Intel Xeon 6357P averages 40630, 0.1% higher. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40518, 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G averages 40718, 0.3% higher. These deltas are all within a narrow band, meaning the Core 5 223PE sits in a tightly contested performance tier where the top adjacent processors differ by less than one third of a percent.

The absence of Core 3 100UL data means no direct head-to-head score comparison is possible. The recorded data only shows what the Core 5 223PE achieves on its own, and those results indicate a capable desktop processor that performs competitively against near-peer CPUs. Without scores for the Core 3 100UL, any direct comparison would require extrapolation from its specifications, which the database does not support.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 223PE demonstrably wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Cinebench multi-core tests show strong scaling: R15's 2666, R20's 11111, and R23's 26455 all indicate robust parallel throughput. The single-core scores, 376 in R15, 1568 in R20, and 3734 in R23, show the processor also handles lightly threaded tasks well.

Passmark tests reveal specific strengths. Integer math at 99819 and floating point at 76468 show solid arithmetic performance. Data compression at 346623 is particularly high, suggesting the Core 5 223PE handles compression workloads efficiently. Data encryption at 18448 trails other metrics relatively, which may reflect the absence of dedicated acceleration features. Random string sorting at 35798 indicates good memory-related sorting throughput.

The Core 3 100UL has no recorded wins because no benchmark data exists. Its specification differences, such as 6 cores and 8 threads versus the Core 5 223PE's 8 cores and 16 threads, imply it would likely trail in multi-threaded scenarios. The Core 3 100UL's base clock of 1.20 GHz and boost of 4.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz and 5.20 GHz on the Core 5 223PE also suggest lower peak performance. However, the database does not confirm these implications with scores.

Use-case analysis from the data shows the Core 5 223PE suits workloads that benefit from high multi-threaded throughput, like rendering, compression, and scientific computing. Its single-thread scores also support general desktop responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. For the Core 3 100UL, the absence of measurements means the database cannot identify any workload where it wins. Its lower TDP of 15 watts versus 65 watts suggests an efficiency-oriented design, but no efficiency metrics appear in the pack, so that remains a qualitative observation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Intel Socket 1700 and both use a 10 nm process node from Intel's foundry. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. Both feature integrated graphics, but the specific models differ: the Core 3 100UL uses UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Core 5 223PE uses UHD Graphics 730.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Core 3 100UL has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 223PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 223PE's thread count doubles its core count, indicating hyper-threading support, whereas the Core 3 100UL's 8 threads from 6 cores suggests a partial hyper-threading arrangement or asymmetric core design.

Cache hierarchies diverge. The Core 3 100UL has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. The Core 5 223PE also has 80 KB L1 per core but 2 MB L2 per core and 24 MB shared L3. The larger L2 and L3 caches on the Core 5 223PE likely contribute to its higher benchmark scores, particularly in memory-sensitive tests like random string sorting and data compression.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Core 3 100UL operates at a 1.20 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. The Core 5 223PE runs at a 2.90 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The higher base clock on the Core 5 223PE provides a significant advantage in sustained workloads, while the boost delta of 0.70 GHz also favors it.

Architecture codenames differ. The Core 3 100UL uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-PS, while the Core 5 223PE uses Bartlett Lake. The generation fields confirm this: Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) versus Core 5 (Bartlett Lake). Both are active production parts, but the Core 5 223PE releases later, on 2026-03-08, versus 2024-04-07 for the Core 3 100UL.

PCIe support differs. The Core 3 100UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 5 223PE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation and double lane count on the Core 5 223PE enable higher bandwidth to GPUs and NVMe storage.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 223PE, which lists ECC as true. The Core 3 100UL has ECC false. Memory bandwidth is only listed for the Core 5 223PE at 89.6 GB/s; the Core 3 100UL has no bandwidth figure.

The Core 5 223PE has a part number, SA4QF, while the Core 3 100UL's part number is unknown. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either.

The Verdict

The recorded data points clearly to the Intel Core 5 223PE as the stronger performer. Its benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark place it at the 87th percentile, and its nearest rivals all sit within 0.3% of its average score, confirming it belongs in a high-performance desktop tier. The Core 3 100UL has no benchmark data, so the database cannot substantiate any performance claim for it.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core 5 223PE's 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with 24 MB L3 cache and a 2.90 GHz base clock, deliver scores like 26455 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Core 3 100UL's 6 cores and 8 threads with 10 MB L3 and a 1.20 GHz base clock suggest it would produce substantially lower multi-core results, but no numbers confirm this.

For single-threaded tasks, the Core 5 223PE's 5.20 GHz boost clock supports its 3734 R23 single-core score. The Core 3 100UL's 4.50 GHz boost implies lower single-thread performance, but again, no data exists.

The Core 3 100UL may serve scenarios where its 15 watt TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 64EU matter more than raw throughput. The Core 5 223PE's 65 watt TDP and UHD Graphics 730 position it for performance-focused desktops. ECC memory support on the Core 5 223PE makes it suitable for reliability-sensitive applications, while the Core 3 100UL lacks that feature.

The database's verdict: the Core 5 223PE is the only processor with measured results, and those results show a competitive high-percentile part. The Core 3 100UL remains unmeasured, so any selection between the two should default to the Core 5 223PE based on available evidence. Users needing lower power consumption might consider the Core 3 100UL qualitatively, but no performance data supports that choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE, based on recorded scores. It achieves 2666 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 11111 in R20, and 26455 in R23. The Core 3 100UL has no recorded multi-core scores.

Q: Does the Core 3 100UL have any benchmark wins?

A: No. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 0, with an empty head-to-head benchmark array. No scores exist for the Core 3 100UL.

Q: How does the Core 5 223PE compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core 7 253PE, 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon 6357P, 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, and 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Core 5 223PE?

A: The database lists 89.6 GB/s for the Core 5 223PE. The Core 3 100UL has no memory bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 5 223PE supports ECC memory, while the Core 3 100UL does not.

Q: What PCIe capabilities does each processor offer?

A: The Core 3 100UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 223PE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 100UL | Intel Core 5 223PE |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.20 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Bartlett Lake |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Bartlett Lake |

| Generation | Core 3 (Raptor Lake-PS) | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $232 |

| Part Number | Unknown | SA4QF |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 50 | 87 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 40585 |