Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 5 120UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core 3 201E wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 5 120UL. There are no workloads in the database where the Core 5 120UL takes the lead. The margin is not uniform, however, and the distribution of deltas reveals distinct strengths and weaknesses for each processor.

The largest advantage for the Core 3 201E appears in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 11035 against 5203 for the Core 5 120UL, a delta of 112.1%. This more than doubles the output of the Core 5 120UL in this workload, indicating a substantial difference in SIMD or specialized instruction throughput. The single-thread results tell a similar story, with the Core 3 201E delivering 3482 in PassMark single-thread versus 2080 for the Core 5 120UL, a 67.4% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core 3 201E scores 179 against 127, a 40.9% delta, reinforcing that the Core 3 201E has a commanding per-core performance advantage.

The multicore benchmarks show a consistent pattern. Cinebench R23 multicore gives the Core 3 201E a score of 12613 versus 8974 for the Core 5 120UL, a 40.6% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 5297 against 3769, a 40.5% delta. Cinebench R15 multicore records 1271 versus 904, a 40.6% delta. PassMark multithread follows with 14839 against 10558, a 40.5% delta. The near-identical percentages across these four tests indicate that the performance gap in heavily threaded workloads is stable and consistent, not workload-specific.

The Core 3 201E also wins in memory and data-oriented tasks. PassMark data compression shows 164160 for the Core 3 201E against 109090 for the Core 5 120UL, a 50.5% delta. PassMark data encryption records 8931 versus 7685, a 16.2% delta. The encryption gap is the narrowest among all tests, suggesting that the Core 5 120UL's encryption throughput is comparatively less disadvantaged than its other workloads. PassMark random string sorting gives 17783 versus 13610, a 30.7% delta.

Math workloads follow the same trend. PassMark floating point math scores 33260 for the Core 3 201E versus 26311 for the Core 5 120UL, a 26.4% delta. PassMark integer math shows 43894 against 38060, a 15.3% delta. The integer math gap is the second-smallest after encryption, indicating that the Core 5 120UL holds up relatively better in integer arithmetic than in other areas. PassMark find prime numbers records 57 versus 47, a 21.3% delta, and PassMark physics shows 1141 against 807, a 41.4% delta.

The average benchmark score reflects this overall dominance. The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, while the Core 5 120UL sits at 13594. The Core 3 201E ranks at the 73rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 120UL ranks at the 68th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 201E include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at an average score of 19047, a delta of 0%, and the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19039, a delta of 0.1%. The Core 5 120UL sits near the Intel Core 3 304, which scores 13745, a delta of -1.1%, meaning the Core 5 120UL trails that chip by 1.1%. The Core 5 120UL also sits close to the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13494, a 0.7% delta, and the Intel Core 3 N355 at 13492, a 0.8% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E leads in all recorded single-thread tests. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3482 against 2080 for the Core 5 120UL, a 67.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1780 against 1266, a 40.6% delta.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multicore rendering workloads?

A: The Core 3 201E wins every multicore rendering test. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 12613 versus 8974 for the Core 5 120UL, a 40.6% delta. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the scores are 5297 and 3769, a 40.5% delta, and in Cinebench R15 multicore, 1271 and 904, a 40.6% delta.

Q: Is there any workload where the Core 5 120UL outperforms the Core 3 201E?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, the Core 3 201E wins every test. The Core 5 120UL records zero wins.

Q: What is the closest margin between the two processors?

A: The smallest delta is in PassMark data encryption, where the Core 3 201E scores 8931 against 7685 for the Core 5 120UL, a 16.2% delta. The second-smallest margin is in PassMark integer math, with a 15.3% delta.

Q: How does the Core 3 201E compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, scores 19047, a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-12400F scores 19039, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core i5-1335U scores 18982, a delta of 0.4%.

Q: How does the Core 5 120UL compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core 5 120UL has an average benchmark score of 13594. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core 3 304, which scores 13745, a delta of -1.1%, meaning the Core 5 120UL trails that chip. The Intel Core i3-12100F scores 13494, a 0.7% delta, and the Intel Core 3 N355 scores 13492, a 0.8% delta.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Core 3 201E is the stronger performer in every measured workload. Its average benchmark score of 19056 places it 40.2% ahead of the Core 5 120UL's 13594. The Core 3 201E also holds a higher percentile rank, 73rd versus 68th among all CPUs in the database. For workloads that rely on single-thread speed, the Core 3 201E's 67.4% lead in PassMark single-thread and 40.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core make it the clear choice. For heavily threaded tasks, the consistent 40.5% to 40.6% deltas across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark multithread confirm the same conclusion.

The Core 5 120UL does offer a different set of characteristics, however. It has a 15 watt TDP against the Core 3 201E's 60 watt TDP, and it includes 10 cores and 12 threads against the Core 3 201E's 4 cores and 8 threads. Its integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU is a more capable graphics solution on paper than the UHD Graphics 730 found in the Core 3 201E. The Core 5 120UL also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes, while the Core 3 201E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Core 5 120UL does not support ECC memory, while the Core 3 201E does.

The data does not show any performance scenario where the Core 5 120UL wins. The Core 3 201E is the appropriate choice when raw compute throughput is the priority. The Core 5 120UL may be relevant in power-constrained environments, given its 15 watt TDP, but no benchmark in the database reflects an advantage for it. The Core 3 201E is the processor to select when benchmark scores are the deciding factor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 120UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds differ substantially: the Core 3 201E runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Core 5 120UL runs at 1.30 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with the Core 3 201E at 4.80 GHz and the Core 5 120UL at 4.60 GHz. Thermal design power differs by a factor of four: the Core 3 201E is rated at 60 watts, while the Core 5 120UL is rated at 15 watts.

Both processors use Intel Socket 1700 and are built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core 5 120UL has no recorded die size. Cache configurations are identical in structure: both have 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Memory support is the same for both: DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel. The Core 3 201E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 5 120UL has no recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory support differs: the Core 3 201E supports ECC, the Core 5 120UL does not. PCIe support differs: the Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the Core 5 120UL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, the Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134; the Core 5 120UL has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 5 120UL was released on 2024-04-07. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 5 120UL is based on Raptor Lake-PS, with its architecture recorded as Raptor Lake. Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Core 3 201E is a desktop part with a 60 watt TDP, while the Core 5 120UL is also a desktop part but with a 15 watt TDP, reflecting a lower-power design philosophy. The Core 3 201E uses 4 cores and 8 threads, which means each core has hyper-threading. The Core 5 120UL uses 10 cores and 12 threads, indicating that not all cores are hyper-threaded. The higher core count in the Core 5 120UL does not translate into a benchmark advantage in the recorded data; its multicore scores remain below the Core 3 201E in all tests.

The Core 3 201E has a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 1.30 GHz for the Core 5 120UL, and a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. This clock advantage explains the Core 3 201E's lead in single-thread benchmarks, despite having fewer cores. The Core 5 120UL's lower TDP and lower clocks indicate a design aimed at power efficiency rather than peak performance. The Core 3 201E includes ECC memory support and 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Core 5 120UL lacks ECC and has no recorded bandwidth figure. The Core 3 201E also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, a newer and wider interface than the Core 5 120UL's PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 5 120UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, which has more execution units. The release dates differ by roughly nine months, with the Core 5 120UL released on 2024-04-07 and the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12. Both are active production parts.