Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 3 201E and the Intel Core 5 330. The Core 5 330 wins 14 of those comparisons, while the Core 3 201E takes 3. The overall average benchmark score favors the Core 3 201E at 19056 versus 18345 for the Core 5 330, a difference of 3.9% in favor of the desktop part.

In multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Core 5 330 consistently leads by a narrow margin. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 1325 versus 1271, a 4.1% advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore records 5523 versus 5297, also 4.1%. Cinebench R23 multicore follows the same pattern: 13150 versus 12613, again 4.1%. The Passmark multithread test shows 15471 versus 14839, a 4.1% edge for the Core 5 330. These results indicate that despite having fewer threads, the mobile chip's higher per-core efficiency allows it to outpace the 8-thread desktop processor in sustained parallel workloads.

Single-core performance shows a similar but slightly larger gap. Cinebench R15 singlecore scores 186 versus 179, a 3.8% lead. Cinebench R20 singlecore records 779 versus 747, a 4.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 1856 versus 1780, again 4.1%. The Passmark single-thread test delivers the largest single-core margin: 4088 versus 3482, a 14.8% difference. The Core 5 330's newer architecture clearly delivers stronger per-thread execution.

The Core 3 201E fights back in specific integer-heavy workloads. Passmark integer math shows 43894 versus 33258, a 32% advantage for the desktop part. Passmark data compression records 164160 versus 145287, a 13% lead. Passmark random string sorting is nearly identical, with 17783 versus 17771, a 0.1% edge for the Core 3 201E. These three wins suggest the Core 3 201E's higher clock speed and larger shared cache benefit certain integer operations.

The Core 5 330 dominates floating-point and cryptography workloads. Passmark floating point math shows 43885 versus 33260, a 24.2% gap. Passmark data encryption records 11076 versus 8931, a 19.4% advantage. Passmark extended instructions delivers 12808 versus 11035, a 13.8% lead. Passmark find prime numbers shows 114 versus 57, a 50% difference. Passmark physics records 1201 versus 1141, a 5% edge.

The overall pattern is clear: the Core 5 330 wins most benchmarks by margins between 3.8% and 50%, while the Core 3 201E wins three specific workloads by margins between 0.1% and 32%. The desktop chip's wins are concentrated in integer math and data compression, areas where its high boost clock of 4.80 GHz and 12 MB shared L3 cache provide tangible benefits.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing nodes and design families. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process, also at Intel. The process node difference explains much of the performance-per-watt gap between the two.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The desktop part relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads, while the mobile part uses 6 physical cores without hyperthreading. Despite the Core 5 330 having 2 more physical cores, the Core 3 201E's 2 extra threads keep it competitive in multithreaded tests.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Core 3 201E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Core 5 330 provides 192 KB of total L1, 2.5 MB of total L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The desktop chip's 12 MB L3 is double the mobile chip's 6 MB, which helps explain the Core 3 201E's wins in data compression and integer math. The Core 5 330's larger L1 and L2 per-core allocations support its single-thread advantage.

Clock speeds show a fundamental tradeoff. The Core 3 201E runs a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core 5 330 runs a base clock of 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The desktop part has a 2.10 GHz higher base clock and 0.20 GHz higher boost clock. The mobile part's much lower base clock reflects its 15 W TDP, versus 60 W for the desktop part.

Memory architecture differs in both type and width. The Core 3 201E supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, achieving 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 330 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, achieving 59.7 GB/s. The desktop chip's dual-channel configuration provides 28.6% more theoretical bandwidth. The Core 3 201E also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 330 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The desktop part offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which matters for expansion options.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 5 330 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The mobile part's newer graphics architecture suggests better media and display capabilities, though the database does not record graphics benchmarks for either part.

The physical packages are incompatible. The Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516, a mobile soldered package. The Core 3 201E has a die size of 163 mm², while the Core 5 330's die size is not recorded. Both parts have locked multipliers.

Release timing differs by about 15 months. The Core 3 201E launched on 2025-01-12, while the Core 5 330 launched on 2026-04-15. The Core 3 201E has a launch MSRP of $134, while the Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 3 201E has an average benchmark score of 19056, compared to 18345 for the Intel Core 5 330. This places the Core 3 201E at the 73rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 72nd percentile for the Core 5 330.

Q: Why does the Core 5 330 win most benchmarks despite having a lower base clock?

A: The Core 5 330 uses a 3 nm process node compared to 10 nm for the Core 3 201E. It has 6 physical cores versus 4, and its single-thread performance is significantly higher, as shown by the 14.8% lead in Passmark single-thread testing.

Q: In which workloads does the Core 3 201E outperform the Core 5 330?

A: The Core 3 201E wins in Passmark integer math by 32%, data compression by 13%, and random string sorting by 0.1%. These wins correlate with its higher 4.80 GHz boost clock and 12 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth capabilities of each processor?

A: The Core 3 201E supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core 5 330 supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 3 201E supports ECC memory, while the Core 5 330 does not.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes and which generation?

A: The Core 3 201E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 330 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201E | Intel Core 5 330 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 6 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 60 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Die size | 163 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $309 |

| Part number | SRVTR | SAE3G |

| Average benchmark score | 19056 | 18345 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 73 | 72 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear distinction based on workload type. The Intel Core 5 330 wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including all Cinebench tests, all single-thread tests, floating-point math, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and multithread. Its margins range from 3.8% to 50%. The processor is the stronger choice for rendering, scientific computation, cryptography, and general single-thread responsiveness.

The Intel Core 3 201E wins 3 of 17 comparisons, but its victories are decisive. The 32% lead in integer math and 13% lead in data compression indicate that workloads dominated by integer arithmetic and data movement favor this chip. The 12 MB shared L3 cache and 4.80 GHz boost clock provide a clear advantage in these specific operations. The desktop part also offers dual-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and 16 Gen 5 PCIe lanes.

The average benchmark score tells a different story from the head-to-head count. The Core 3 201E averages 19056 versus 18345, a 3.9% overall advantage. The Core 5 330 sits near the Intel Core i3-14100, Core 7 360, and Core i3-13100 in its nearest rivals, while the Core 3 201E sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS and Intel Core i5-12400F.

Market segment determines the practical choice. The Core 3 201E is a desktop processor on Socket 1700 with a 60 W TDP, suited for systems with discrete expansion slots and dual-channel memory. The Core 5 330 is a mobile processor on BGA 1516 with a 15 W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and compact packaging matter. The data shows the mobile chip outperforms the desktop chip in most benchmarks while consuming one-quarter of the power budget, a direct result of the 3 nm process versus 10 nm.

For integer-heavy desktop workloads with ECC requirements and high PCIe bandwidth, the Core 3 201E is the better fit. For general-purpose mobile computing with superior single-thread performance and floating-point throughput, the Core 5 330 is the better fit. The 73rd versus 72nd percentile ranking confirms that both parts sit in a similar overall performance band, with workload-specific strengths defining their respective roles.