Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core i5-11600KF Comparison
Intel Core 3 201E
Core i5-11600KF
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 3 201E vs Intel Core i5-11600KF
The Intel Core i5-11600KF and the Intel Core 3 201E occupy the same overall performance percentile, both sitting at the 73rd percentile against all CPUs in the database. Despite that equal standing, the two processors deliver very different performance profiles. The Core i5-11600KF wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with particularly large margins in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks. The Core 3 201E, however, takes the lead in three specific tests: PassMark physics, PassMark single-thread, and PassMark singlethread. The data suggests the Core i5-11600KF is the stronger all-around performer, while the Core 3 201E offers a more efficient package with a newer platform and specific single-thread strengths.
The Verdict
The benchmark data points to a clear split based on workload priorities. For users whose tasks scale with cores and threads, the Intel Core i5-11600KF is the obvious choice. It delivers a 30.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 16503 against the Core 3 201E's 12613. That same pattern holds across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with the i5-11600KF consistently leading by approximately 30.8%. The i5-11600KF also dominates in integer math, scoring 64195 against 43894, a 46.3% margin, and in extended instructions, where it leads by 59.7%. If the workload involves heavy computation, data compression, or encryption, the i5-11600KF is the superior processor.
The Intel Core 3 201E, despite having fewer cores and threads, wins the PassMark single-thread tests by 4.5%, scoring 3482 against 3327. It also wins the PassMark physics test by 16.4%, scoring 1141 against 954. The Core 3 201E is also the only one of the two with an integrated GPU, featuring UHD Graphics 730, and it supports ECC memory. For users who prioritize single-thread performance, need a basic integrated graphics solution, or require ECC memory support, the Core 3 201E is the better fit. The data shows the i5-11600KF as the performance leader, but the Core 3 201E has distinct advantages in specific scenarios.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different generations and use different underlying designs. The Intel Core i5-11600KF is built on Rocket Lake architecture, using a 14 nm process node, while the Intel Core 3 201E uses Bartlett Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node. The i5-11600KF is a 6-core, 12-thread processor, while the Core 3 201E is a 4-core, 8-thread processor. The i5-11600KF features a 125 W TDP, whereas the Core 3 201E has a 60 W TDP, indicating a significant difference in power draw.
The cache layouts also differ. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 cache differs substantially: the i5-11600KF has 512 KB per core, while the Core 3 201E has 1.25 MB per core. This means the Core 3 201E has more L2 cache per physical core, which may contribute to its single-thread performance advantage. The die size also reflects the architectural differences, with the i5-11600KF measuring 276 mm² and the Core 3 201E measuring 163 mm².
The platform support diverges as well. The i5-11600KF uses Intel Socket 1200, while the Core 3 201E uses Intel Socket 1700. The i5-11600KF supports only DDR4 memory, while the Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core 3 201E at 76.8 GB/s compared to 51.2 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the i5-11600KF offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Core 3 201E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Core 3 201E also includes UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics, whereas the i5-11600KF has no integrated graphics.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the i5-11600KF's multi-core wins. Across all three Cinebench versions, the i5-11600KF leads by nearly identical margins: 30.8% in R15 multi-core (1663 vs 1271), 30.8% in R20 multi-core (6931 vs 5297), and 30.8% in R23 multi-core (16503 vs 12613). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same trend, with the i5-11600KF leading by 30.7% in R15 single-core (234 vs 179), 30.9% in R20 single-core (978 vs 747), and 30.8% in R23 single-core (2329 vs 1780).
PassMark results show even larger gaps in some tests. The i5-11600KF leads by 47.9% in data compression (242730 vs 164160), by 36.6% in data encryption (12198 vs 8931), and by 59.7% in extended instructions (17619 vs 11035). Integer math shows a 46.3% lead for the i5-11600KF (64195 vs 43894), and random string sorting shows a 56.1% advantage (27767 vs 17783). Floating point math is closer, with the i5-11600KF ahead by 14.6% (38129 vs 33260). The find prime numbers test is nearly tied, with the i5-11600KF ahead by just 3.5% (59 vs 57).
The Core 3 201E wins are concentrated in specific PassMark tests. It leads in PassMark physics by 16.4%, scoring 1141 against 954. It also leads in both PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread tests by 4.5%, scoring 3482 against 3327. These wins suggest the Core 3 201E has a different performance characteristic in these specific workloads, likely related to its newer architecture and different cache layout.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The Core i5-11600KF has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ, with the i5-11600KF at 3.90 GHz and the Core 3 201E at 3.60 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, at 4.90 GHz for the i5-11600KF and 4.80 GHz for the Core 3 201E. The TDP is 125 W for the i5-11600KF and 60 W for the Core 3 201E. The socket type differs, with the i5-11600KF using Socket 1200 and the Core 3 201E using Socket 1700.
Process node and foundry are the same foundry but different nodes: 14 nm for the i5-11600KF and 10 nm for the Core 3 201E. L2 cache differs, with 512 KB per core for the i5-11600KF and 1.25 MB per core for the Core 3 201E. Memory support differs, with the i5-11600KF supporting only DDR4 and the Core 3 201E supporting DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for the i5-11600KF and 76.8 GB/s for the Core 3 201E. ECC memory support is false for the i5-11600KF and true for the Core 3 201E. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 20 lanes for the i5-11600KF and Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Core 3 201E. The i5-11600KF has no integrated graphics, while the Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730. The multiplier is unlocked on the i5-11600KF and locked on the Core 3 201E.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?
A: The Intel Core i5-11600KF scores 16503 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 30.8% higher than the Intel Core 3 201E's score of 12613.
Q: Does the Intel Core 3 201E outperform the i5-11600KF in any benchmark?
A: Yes, the Core 3 201E wins in PassMark physics (1141 vs 954, a 16.4% advantage) and in PassMark single-thread tests (3482 vs 3327, a 4.5% advantage).
Q: What is the difference in memory support between the two processors?
A: The Intel Core i5-11600KF supports only DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core 3 201E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Core 3 201E also has higher memory bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s compared to 51.2 GB/s.
Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?
A: The Intel Core i5-11600KF has a TDP of 125 W, while the Intel Core 3 201E has a TDP of 60 W.
Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?
A: The Intel Core 3 201E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core i5-11600KF has no integrated graphics.
Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?
A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-11600KF and the Intel Core 3 201E are at the 73rd percentile against all CPUs in the database.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core i5-11600KF wins in the vast majority of benchmark comparisons, making it the stronger choice for compute-intensive workloads. Its largest margins come in extended instructions (59.7% ahead), random string sorting (56.1% ahead), and data compression (47.9% ahead). These results indicate strong performance in tasks that involve complex instruction sets, data manipulation, and compression algorithms. The i5-11600KF also leads significantly in integer math (46.3%) and data encryption (36.6%), making it suitable for encryption-heavy workloads and general computational tasks. The consistent 30.8% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests reinforces its advantage in rendering and multi-threaded productivity.
The Intel Core 3 201E wins in PassMark physics, where it is 16.4% ahead, and in PassMark single-thread tests, where it is 4.5% ahead. The physics test win suggests an advantage in specific simulation or physics-based workloads. The single-thread win, while modest, indicates that the Core 3 201E has a stronger per-core performance in certain tests, likely due to its newer 10 nm process and larger L2 cache per core. The Core 3 201E also offers features the i5-11600KF lacks, including integrated graphics, ECC memory support, and DDR5 memory support, making it a more versatile platform choice for systems that need these capabilities. For users who need the raw multi-threaded performance, the i5-11600KF is the clear winner. For users who need integrated graphics, ECC memory, or the newer Socket 1700 platform, the Core 3 201E is the more appropriate selection.