Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two Bartlett Lake desktop processors. The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the Intel Core 3 201E in nearly every recorded benchmark, winning 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Core 5 211E posts an average benchmark score of 37,829, roughly double the Core 3 201E's 19,056, and sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database versus the 73rd percentile for the smaller chip.

The Core 3 201E is the choice for applications that prioritize prime number finding and physics simulation workloads. It wins the passmark find prime numbers test by 32.6% and the passmark physics test by 62.5%. These are narrow but consistent victories. For everything else measured, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark's integer, floating point, encryption, compression, and sorting workloads, the Core 5 211E is decisively faster, often by margins between 37.7% and 52.7%.

The Core 5 211E also carries a higher launch MSRP of $221 compared to $134 for the Core 3 201E. The specification sheet justifies this gap with double the cores, double the L3 cache, and a larger die. For builders who need sustained multi-threaded throughput, the Core 5 211E is the clear pick. For those who only care about the two specific single-threaded workloads where the Core 3 201E wins, the smaller chip suffices.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Bartlett Lake codename, the 10 nm process node, and Intel Socket 1700. They also share the same integrated graphics solution, UHD Graphics 730, and identical memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory and both are locked processors with no unlocked multiplier.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Core 3 201E running at 3.60 GHz and the Core 5 211E at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E versus 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 211E. The Core 5 211E compensates for its lower base frequency with more cores and a slightly higher boost ceiling.

Cache layouts also differ. The Core 3 201E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 211E keeps the same 80 KB L1 per core but expands L2 to 2 MB per core and L3 to 20 MB shared. The die size reflects this gap: 163 mm² for the Core 3 201E versus 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E. Both use the same Gen 5 PCIe interface with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The part numbers differ as well, with the Core 3 201E listed as SRVTR and the Core 5 211E as SRQERQ65F. Both were released on the same date, 2025-01-12, and both remain in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 38% gap across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 5 211E scores 2,055 against 1,271, a 38.2% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 289 versus 179, also 38.1% in favor of the Core 5 211E. R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 8,563 versus 5,297, a 38.1% edge. R20 single-core: 1,208 versus 747, 38.2% ahead. R23 multi-core: 20,389 versus 12,613, 38.1% ahead. R23 single-core: 2,878 versus 1,780, 38.2% ahead. The consistency of these margins suggests the Core 5 211E's extra cores and larger cache deliver a uniform scaling advantage in Cinebench workloads.

PassMark results show even larger gaps in many tests. Data compression favors the Core 5 211E by 52.7%, with scores of 346,757 versus 164,160. Data encryption shows a 50.2% gap, 17,938 versus 8,931. Extended instructions testing produces 21,592 versus 11,035, a 48.9% lead. Floating point math: 66,402 versus 33,260, a 49.9% margin. Integer math: 88,117 versus 43,894, 50.2% ahead. Random string sorting: 34,308 versus 17,783, a 48.2% edge. The multi-thread PassMark score gives the Core 5 211E a 37.7% advantage, 23,833 versus 14,839.

The single-thread PassMark test narrows the gap considerably. The Core 5 211E scores 4,006 against 3,482, only 13.1% ahead. This makes sense given the boost clock difference of just 0.10 GHz.

The Core 3 201E wins two tests. In find prime numbers, it scores 57 against 43, a 32.6% advantage. In physics simulation, it scores 1,141 against 702, a 62.5% lead. These are the only areas where the smaller chip's lower thread count and different cache behavior produce better results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37,829, while the Intel Core 3 201E averages 19,056. The Core 5 211E also ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 73rd percentile for the Core 3 201E.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, which is 6 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: Are the Cinebench margins consistent across versions?

A: Yes. In R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests show the Core 5 211E ahead by approximately 38%. The deltas range from 38.1% to 38.2% across all six Cinebench tests.

Q: Does the Core 3 201E win any benchmark?

A: It wins two. In passmark find prime numbers, it scores 57 versus 43, a 32.6% advantage. In passmark physics, it scores 1,141 versus 702, a 62.5% advantage.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in the passmark single-thread test, where the Core 5 211E scores 4,006 versus 3,482, a 13.1% difference. This aligns with the small boost clock difference of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and ECC?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses, both have 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E wins across the broad majority of workloads. All Cinebench rendering tests, both multi-core and single-core, go to the Core 5 211E by roughly 38%. PassMark integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and multi-thread tests all favor the Core 5 211E with margins from 37.7% to 52.7%. The single-thread PassMark test also goes to the Core 5 211E, though by a narrower 13.1%. For any build involving video rendering, code compilation, data processing, encryption, or general productivity, the Core 5 211E is the faster part.

The Intel Core 3 201E wins in two specific PassMark sub-tests. Its 32.6% advantage in find prime numbers suggests it handles that particular integer workload more efficiently. Its 62.5% lead in physics simulation points to better performance in that specific simulation routine. These wins are isolated, but they are real and reproducible in the recorded data. Builders targeting those exact workloads, such as certain physics engines or prime-number-based algorithms, may prefer the Core 3 201E despite its overall lower average score.

The Core 3 201E also has a 3.60 GHz base clock versus 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 211E, which may contribute to its wins in those two tests. The 0.90 GHz base clock advantage, combined with the smaller core count, likely reduces contention in workloads that do not scale with thread count.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the Intel Core 3 201E and Intel Core 5 211E are as follows:

• Cores: 4 versus 10
• Threads: 8 versus 16
• Base clock: 3.60 GHz versus 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz versus 4.90 GHz
• TDP: 60 W versus 65 W
• Die size: 163 mm² versus 257 mm²
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared versus 20 MB shared
• Launch MSRP: $134 versus $221
• Part number: SRVTR versus SRQERQ65F

Both share the same socket, process node, foundry, L1 cache per core, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and unlocked multiplier status. The similarities end there. The Core 5 211E's larger die, doubled L3 cache, and additional cores account for its decisive benchmark lead.