Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 5 130UL Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core 5 130UL serve entirely different purposes despite sharing the same LGA 1700 socket and 10 nm manufacturing process. The Core 3 201E is a high-clock, low-core-count desktop part aimed at tasks that favor single-thread speed, with a 4.80 GHz boost clock and a 60 W TDP. The Core 5 130UL is a low-power, high-core-count alternative with 10 cores, 12 threads, and a 15 W TDP, making it the choice for efficiency-focused workloads rather than raw peak performance.

The database shows the Core 3 201E sits in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 130UL sits in the 50th percentile. That gap alone signals that the Core 3 201E delivers substantially more performance in the recorded benchmarks. The Core 3 201E also carries an average benchmark score of 19056, while the Core 5 130UL has no recorded benchmark data in the database. For anyone prioritizing verified performance, the Core 3 201E is the only option with measurable results. The Core 5 130UL, however, offers the advantage of significantly lower power draw, which may matter for passively cooled or thermally constrained systems.

The Core 3 201E is the pick for desktops where performance per thread and overall compute throughput matter. The Core 5 130UL is the pick for systems where the 15 W TDP and integrated Iris Xe Graphics 80EU are more valuable than the Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP and UHD Graphics 730. The data does not support calling the Core 5 130UL a performance alternative; it is a different class of processor entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Intel Socket 1700 and are both built on Intel's 10 nm node, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) generation. It has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 130UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation, with 10 cores and 12 threads.

Clock speeds tell the story of their design philosophies. The Core 3 201E runs a 3.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 130UL runs a 1.60 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.70 GHz. That nearly identical boost ceiling on the Core 5 130UL suggests it can reach similar single-thread peaks, but its much lower base clock reflects its power-conscious intent. The Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP, while the Core 5 130UL has a 15 W TDP, a fourfold difference that directly impacts sustained all-core workloads.

Cache configurations are identical on a per-core basis: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. Both share 12 MB of L3. Memory support is also the same, with DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 130UL does not. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 130UL offers Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 3 201E using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core 5 130UL using Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, the latter being the more capable GPU solution.

The Core 3 201E has a recorded die size of 163 mm², while the Core 5 130UL has no die size listed. The Core 3 201E has a known part number, SRVTR, and a launch MSRP of $134. The Core 5 130UL has no launch MSRP recorded. The Core 3 201E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 5 130UL was released on 2024-04-07. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 3 201E is marked as Active in production, as is the Core 5 130UL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, which means the Core 5 130UL has no recorded scores for any of the standard tests. The Core 3 201E, however, has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results that define its performance profile.

In Cinebench R23, the Core 3 201E scores 12613 in multi-core and 1780 in single-core. The multi-core figure places it well above the 50th percentile CPUs, and the single-core score of 1780 reflects its high 4.80 GHz boost clock. In Cinebench R20, the same processor scores 5297 multi-core and 747 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1271 multi-core and 179 single-core. These results show a consistent pattern: the Core 3 201E is a strong single-thread performer and a capable multi-thread performer given its 4-core, 8-thread configuration.

PassMark results for the Core 3 201E reinforce that picture. The multithread score is 14839, and the single-thread score is 3482 (recorded twice under slightly different test names, both 3482). Integer math scores 43894, floating point math scores 33260, and extended instructions score 11035. Data compression scores 164160, data encryption scores 8931, and random string sorting scores 17783. Physics scores 1141, and find prime numbers scores 57.

Because the Core 5 130UL has zero recorded benchmarks, there is no direct numeric comparison available. The database's nearest rival data for the Core 3 201E provides context: the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS has an average score of 19047 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-12400F has 19039 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i5-1335U has 18982 with a 0.4% delta, and the AMD EPYC 7773X has 18979 with a 0.4% delta. The Core 3 201E's average benchmark score of 19056 places it essentially at parity with those four rivals, all within a 0.4% margin. That means the Core 3 201E trades blows with a mobile Ryzen 5, a desktop Core i5, a low-power Core i5, and a server EPYC, none of which share its exact core count or TDP.

The Core 5 130UL has no nearest rivals listed, which leaves its relative position undefined. The percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all CPUs, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot quantify its wins or losses. The only verifiable difference in the head-to-head comparison is the absence of data for one side.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 130UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP. The Intel Core 5 130UL has a 15 W TDP, which is four times lower.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Core 3 201E also supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 130UL does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Core 5 130UL has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, which is slightly lower.

Q: Does the Core 5 130UL have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Core 5 130UL has an empty benchmark list. The Core 3 201E has scores across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and multiple PassMark tests.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core 5 130UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 201E wins in every measurable benchmark category because it has recorded data and the Core 5 130UL does not. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12613 and single-core score of 1780 establish it as a legitimate performer for both threaded and single-threaded workloads. The PassMark multithread score of 14839 and single-thread score of 3482 further confirm that the Core 3 201E can handle everyday computing, content creation, and moderate multi-threaded tasks without issue. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge in latency-sensitive applications, and its 60 W TDP allows sustained performance in a desktop chassis with standard cooling.

The Intel Core 5 130UL wins in power efficiency and integrated graphics capability. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Core 3 201E's 60 W TDP, making it suitable for fanless or low-power designs where heat dissipation is a constraint. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU is a more capable integrated GPU than the UHD Graphics 730, so the Core 5 130UL is the better choice for systems that rely on the iGPU for display output or light media acceleration. Its 10 cores and 12 threads also give it a theoretical advantage in highly parallel workloads, though the lack of benchmark data prevents any quantitative confirmation.

The PCIe difference favors the Core 3 201E, which offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes versus the Core 5 130UL's Gen 4 with 8 lanes. For users installing a discrete GPU or NVMe storage, the Core 3 201E provides more bandwidth and more lanes. The ECC memory support on the Core 3 201E also makes it the pick for error-sensitive computing, while the Core 5 130UL lacks that feature.

The release dates differ by about nine months, with the Core 5 130UL arriving on 2024-04-07 and the Core 3 201E on 2025-01-12. Both remain active in production. The Core 3 201E has a known launch MSRP of $134, while the Core 5 130UL has no recorded price. Neither processor offers an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

The database positions the Core 3 201E in the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 130UL sits at the 50th percentile. That ranking gap, combined with the full benchmark suite for the Core 3 201E and the empty suite for the Core 5 130UL, means the Core 3 201E is the only one of the two that can be recommended for performance-verified workloads. The Core 5 130UL remains a viable option only where its 15 W TDP and superior iGPU are the deciding factors.