Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 5 120 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark sweep is completely one-sided. The Intel Core 5 120 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 201E does not secure a single victory in any measured workload. This is not a close contest by any standard, and the data shows a consistent performance gap across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks.

The largest advantages for the Core 5 120 appear in rendering and CPU-intensive compute workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 120 scores 18255 against 12613 for the Core 3 201E, a 30.9% deficit for the smaller chip. The same 30.9% margin repeats across Cinebench R15 multi-core (1840 vs 1271) and R20 multi-core (7667 vs 5297). Single-core Cinebench results follow the identical pattern: R23 single-core shows 2577 vs 1780, again a 30.9% gap. This consistent percentage across all Cinebench variants suggests the advantage scales uniformly regardless of the rendering engine version.

PassMark results tell a slightly more nuanced story. The Core 5 120 leads by 25.2% in data compression (219535 vs 164160), 19.8% in data encryption (11131 vs 8931), and 22.6% in extended instructions (14264 vs 11035). The smallest margin in the entire suite appears in PassMark single-thread, where the Core 5 120 scores 3595 against 3482, a modest 3.1% advantage. This narrow single-thread gap is notable because it shows the Core 3 201E's high boost clock partially compensates for its lower core count in lightly threaded work.

The multi-threaded PassMark score favors the Core 5 120 by 20.2% (18597 vs 14839), while integer math shows a 27.4% gap (60462 vs 43894) and floating point math a 26.7% gap (45383 vs 33260). Prime number finding, physics, and random string sorting all favor the Core 5 120 by margins between 14.4% and 26%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share several foundational traits but diverge in core configuration and cache hierarchy. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node and use the same 163 mm² die size. Both run on Intel Socket 1700 and expose Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are identical: UHD Graphics 730 on both parts. Memory support includes DDR4 and DDR5 on each, with dual-channel bus configuration.

The Core 3 201E belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, while the Core 5 120 is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh family with a Raptor Lake architecture. The Core 3 201E packs 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the Core 5 120 doubles the core count with 6 cores and 12 threads. This 50% increase in physical cores and threads is the primary driver of the multi-threaded performance disparity.

Clock speeds follow an interesting pattern. The Core 3 201E has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 120 runs a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Despite the Core 3 201E holding a 0.30 GHz boost advantage, the Core 5 120 still wins single-threaded tests, which indicates the architectural efficiency of Raptor Lake more than compensates for the lower peak frequency.

Cache allocation differs substantially. Both processors use 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, favors the Core 5 120 with 18 MB shared, against 12 MB shared for the Core 3 201E. This 6 MB difference in last-level cache likely contributes to the Core 5 120's superior performance in data compression and encryption tasks, which benefit from larger working sets residing in cache.

Power envelopes are close but not equal. The Core 3 201E carries a 60 W TDP, while the Core 5 120 is rated at 65 W. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201E but absent on the Core 5 120. Both parts have locked multipliers, are produced by Intel, and remain in active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: PassMark single-thread scores show the Core 5 120 at 3595 against 3482 for the Core 3 201E, a 3.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger 30.9% gap, with 2577 vs 1780.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 3 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 5 120 has no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 5 120 has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 3 201E has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different between the two?

A: No, both processors use UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory. The Core 5 120 does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core 5 120 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 65 W |

| Architecture | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-07-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $211 |

| Part Number | SRVTR | SA35V |

Shared specifications include the 10 nm process node, 163 mm² die size, Intel Socket 1700, UHD Graphics 730, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, and locked multipliers. Both processors are desktop parts in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded benchmark favors the Intel Core 5 120. The most dramatic margins appear in Cinebench tests, where the Core 5 120 holds a nearly uniform 30.9% advantage across R15 multi-core, R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core. The R20 single-core test shows a 31% gap, the only benchmark where the deficit exceeds the 30.9% figure.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 18255 vs 12613 is the largest absolute score difference in the entire comparison, a 5642-point gap that corresponds to the combined effect of two additional cores, four additional threads, and 6 MB more L3 cache. The single-core Cinebench R23 result of 2577 vs 1780 confirms that the Core 5 120's architectural advantages extend beyond raw core count.

PassMark integer math shows a 27.4% gap with scores of 60462 vs 43894. Floating point math trails at 26.7% (45383 vs 33260). Prime number finding delivers a 26% difference (77 vs 57), and data compression shows a 25.2% gap (219535 vs 164160). Extended instructions come in at 22.6% (14264 vs 11035), followed by multi-thread at 20.2% (18597 vs 14839) and data encryption at 19.8% (11131 vs 8931).

Random string sorting shows a 17.3% gap (21499 vs 17783), while physics testing records the smallest multi-threaded deficit at 14.4% (1333 vs 1141). The PassMark single-thread tests show only a 3.1% difference (3595 vs 3482), the narrowest margin in the entire suite.

The percentile rankings place the Core 5 120 in the 77th percentile against all CPUs, while the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile. Average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy: the Core 5 120 averages 25362, compared to 19056 for the Core 3 201E. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 120 include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i7-11700KF at -0.2%, and the Intel Core i5-13400F at 0.3%. The Core 3 201E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 0%, the Intel Core i5-12400F at 0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-1335U at 0.4%. These rivalry data confirm that the Core 5 120 competes in a higher performance tier, while the Core 3 201E aligns with mainstream desktop and mobile processors.