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

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E records an average benchmark score of 19056, compared to 15370 for the Intel Core 5 211TE. The Core 3 201E also holds a higher percentile rank among all CPUs at 73, versus 69 for the Core 5 211TE.

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

A: The Core 3 201E sits within 0.4 percent of the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS (average score 19047), the Intel Core i5-12400F (19039), the Intel Core i5-1335U (18982), and the AMD EPYC 7773X (18979), making it statistically equivalent to those processors.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Core 5 211TE carries a 45 W TDP, while the Core 3 201E carries a 60 W TDP.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core 5 211TE show its largest advantage?

A: The Core 5 211TE wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 1278 versus 1141 for the Core 3 201E, a 10.7 percent advantage. It also wins the PassMark find prime numbers test with 72 versus 57, a 20.8 percent edge.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: Both processors boost to 4.80 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Core 3 201E at 3.60 GHz and the Core 5 211TE at 1.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory and use Intel Socket 1700.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Bartlett Lake family and are manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. They share the same socket, Intel Socket 1700, and the same integrated graphics, the UHD Graphics 730. The architectural split is primarily in scale and clock strategy rather than in fundamental design.

The Core 3 201E uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 211TE uses 10 cores and 16 threads. The die size reflects this difference: the Core 3 201E measures 163 mm², while the Core 5 211TE measures 215 mm². Cache allocation also differs. Both processors provide 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is 12 MB on the Core 3 201E and 20 MB on the Core 5 211TE.

Clock behavior is where the two diverge sharply. The Core 3 201E runs a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Core 5 211TE runs a base clock of 1.70 GHz. Both boost to 4.80 GHz. The Core 3 201E therefore relies on a high sustained clock across fewer cores, whereas the Core 5 211TE uses a much lower base clock but compensates with additional cores and a larger L3 cache.

The TDP ratings also differ significantly. The Core 3 201E is rated at 60 W, while the Core 5 211TE is rated at 45 W. This means the Core 5 211TE delivers more cores and threads within a lower thermal envelope, but it does so at a substantially reduced base frequency. Both processors support PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and both are unlocked multipliers, meaning they cannot be overclocked via the multiplier.

The production status for both is Active, and both were released on the same date. The part numbers differ, with the Core 3 201E listed as SRVTR and the Core 5 211TE as SRQDL. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the Core 3 201E wins 15 of 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Core 5 211TE wins 2. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core 3 201E leads by a narrow but uniform margin across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 3 201E scores 1271 against 1229, a 3.4 percent advantage. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, it scores 179 against 173, a 3.5 percent edge. The R20 tests show the same pattern: 5297 versus 5124 in multicore (3.4 percent) and 747 versus 723 in singlecore (3.3 percent). Cinebench R23 follows with 12613 versus 12201 in multicore (3.4 percent) and 1780 versus 1722 in singlecore (3.4 percent). These results indicate that despite having fewer cores, the Core 3 201E sustains a higher effective performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite amplifies this lead in most categories. The Core 3 201E wins data compression by a 23 percent margin, scoring 164160 versus 133434. Data encryption goes to the Core 3 201E by 23.5 percent, 8931 versus 7231. Extended instructions show a 28.1 percent advantage for the Core 3 201E, 11035 versus 8615. Floating point math favors the Core 3 201E by 27.2 percent, 33260 versus 26150. Integer math shows the largest core-suite delta at 29.1 percent, with 43894 versus 33991. Multithread performance is 27 percent higher on the Core 3 201E, 14839 versus 11685. Random string sorting adds a 19.8 percent win for the Core 3 201E, 17783 versus 14838.

The single-thread PassMark results are the most dramatic. The Core 3 201E scores 3482 in both PassMark single thread and singlethread tests, while the Core 5 211TE scores 1408 in both. This represents a 147.3 percent advantage for the Core 3 201E, a margin that dwarfs the Cinebench single-core differences. The PassMark single-thread test appears to be highly sensitive to the base clock disparity between the two parts.

The Core 5 211TE claims its two wins in workloads that respond to core count and cache capacity. In the PassMark physics test, it scores 1278 versus 1141, a 10.7 percent advantage. In the PassMark find prime numbers test, it scores 72 versus 57, a 20.8 percent edge. These wins show that the Core 5 211TE can outperform in specific integer-heavy or physics-simulation workloads despite losing the overall benchmark average.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the head-to-head results. The Core 3 201E averages 19056, while the Core 5 211TE averages 15370, a gap of roughly 24 percent. The Core 3 201E also ranks in the 73rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE ranks in the 69th percentile.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 4 (Core 3 201E) versus 10 (Core 5 211TE)
• Threads: 8 (Core 3 201E) versus 16 (Core 5 211TE)
• Base Clock: 3.60 GHz (Core 3 201E) versus 1.70 GHz (Core 5 211TE)
• TDP: 60 W (Core 3 201E) versus 45 W (Core 5 211TE)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (Core 3 201E) versus 215 mm² (Core 5 211TE)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (Core 3 201E) versus 20 MB shared (Core 5 211TE)
• Part Number: SRVTR (Core 3 201E) versus SRQDL (Core 5 211TE)
• Launch MSRP: $134 (Core 3 201E) versus $221 (Core 5 211TE)

All other recorded specifications match: both use Intel Socket 1700, the Bartlett Lake codename, a 10 nm process node, Intel as the foundry, 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, UHD Graphics 730, and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. Both are unlocked multipliers, both target the desktop market segment, and both share the same release date and production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 201E wins across the majority of recorded workloads. In rendering, the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites all show the Core 3 201E ahead by 3.3 to 3.5 percent in both multicore and singlecore tests. In data processing, it leads by 19.8 to 29.1 percent in compression, encryption, extended instructions, integer math, floating point math, multithread, and random string sorting. The single-thread PassMark results give the Core 3 201E a 147.3 percent advantage, making it the clear choice for workloads that depend on high per-core throughput.

The Core 5 211TE wins in two specific PassMark tests: physics and find prime numbers. The physics test shows a 10.7 percent advantage, and the prime number test shows a 20.8 percent advantage. These wins suggest that the Core 5 211TE has an edge in workloads that benefit from a larger core count and a larger L3 cache, particularly when those workloads do not rely heavily on single-thread clock speed.

The Core 3 201E also holds the advantage in benchmark percentile ranking. It sits at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core 3 201E include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS, Intel Core i5-12400F, Intel Core i5-1335U, and AMD EPYC 7773X, all within 0.4 percent of its average score. The Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543, AMD EPYC 7702P, AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, and Intel Core i3-1315U, with deltas ranging from -2 percent to 2.3 percent.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall winner. The Intel Core 3 201E outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score (19056 versus 15370), and ranks higher in percentile among all CPUs (73 versus 69). Its wins are not marginal in most categories: the PassMark suite shows double-digit advantages in nearly every test, and the single-thread test shows a 147.3 percent lead.

The Core 5 211TE offers more cores, more threads, a larger L3 cache, and a lower TDP, but those advantages do not translate into benchmark superiority in the recorded data. Its base clock of 1.70 GHz appears to be a significant liability, particularly in single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads. Its two wins, in physics and prime number finding, are real but narrow in the context of the full benchmark set.

For workloads that prioritize multicore throughput, rendering, data compression, encryption, or general integer and floating point math, the Core 3 201E is the stronger choice based on the recorded measurements. For workloads that specifically exercise physics simulation or prime number generation, the Core 5 211TE shows an advantage, but those wins are offset by substantial losses elsewhere.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the Intel Core 3 201E delivers superior measured performance across nearly all tested categories, despite having fewer cores and a higher TDP. The Intel Core 5 211TE remains a viable option only for niche workloads where its core count and cache capacity outweigh its low base clock.