Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 5 120 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 120 is the clear performance leader in this comparison, but the two processors serve entirely different purposes. The Core 5 120 delivers substantially higher multi-threaded throughput, ranking in the 77th percentile across all CPUs, while the Core 3 201TE sits at the 50th percentile. For users who need sustained multi-core performance, the Core 5 120 is the obvious choice. The Core 3 201TE, however, offers a lower power envelope at 45W TDP versus 65W for the Core 5 120, making it suitable for constrained thermal environments. The Core 3 201TE also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core 5 120, which matters for specific workstation or reliability-focused deployments.

Benchmark data exists only for the Core 5 120, with an average benchmark score of 25362. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D with a score of 25365 (0% difference), the Intel Core i7-11700KF at 25423 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i5-13400F at 25292 (0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U at 25432 (-0.3%). This places the Core 5 120 in a tightly contested performance band, essentially matching those four CPUs within a 0.6% spread. The Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so direct numerical comparisons between the two are unavailable; the analysis must rely on architectural and specification differences.

Architecture Differences

The Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 5 120 uses Raptor Lake-R, part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². The Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core 5 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads, a 50% increase in core count and thread count.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both processors share the same L1 cache at 80 KB per core and the same L2 cache at 1.25 MB per core. The L3 cache differs: the Core 3 201TE has 12 MB shared, while the Core 5 120 has 18 MB shared, a 50% larger pool. This larger L3 cache benefits workloads with repeated data access patterns.

Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 3 201TE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 5 120 has no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201TE but absent on the Core 5 120. Both use the same PCIe implementation: Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are identical: UHD Graphics 730 on both.

Clock speeds show a nuanced picture. The Core 3 201TE has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Core 5 120 has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a boost of 4.50 GHz, just 0.10 GHz below the Core 3. This means the Core 3 201TE holds a clock advantage at both the base and boost levels, though the Core 5 120 compensates with additional cores and cache.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance potential?

A: Based on clock speeds, the Core 3 201TE has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz for the Core 5 120. The recorded benchmark scores for the Core 5 120 show a single-thread score of 3595 in PassMark and 2577 in Cinebench R23, but no comparable Core 3 201TE scores exist in the database.

Q: Does the Core 3 201TE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 3 201TE has ECC memory support enabled. The Core 5 120 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the performance class of the Core 5 120?

A: The Core 5 120 has an average benchmark score of 25362 and sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. It matches the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365, 0% difference) and sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13400F (25292) and 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-11700KF (25423).

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Core 5 120 has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 3 201TE has 12 MB. Both have identical L1 (80 KB per core) and L2 (1.25 MB per core) cache sizes.

Q: What are the release dates of these processors?

A: The Core 3 201TE was released in January 2025, while the Core 5 120 was released later in July 2025. Both are currently in active production.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700 and are desktop processors. Both have 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and the same integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 3 201TE | Intel Core 5 120 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Generation | Core 3 (Bartlett Lake) | Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Supported | Not supported |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-07-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $134 | $211 |

| Part Number | SRPKDQ5CK | SA35V |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 50 | 77 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 (no data) | 25362 |

Identical specifications include: process node (10 nm), die size (163 mm²), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (1.25 MB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), market segment (desktop), production status (active), socket (Intel Socket 1700), and multiplier lock (unlocked: no).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database. The comparison relies on the Core 5 120's recorded benchmark suite and the architectural differences of the Core 3 201TE.

The Core 5 120 demonstrates strong multi-core performance across Cinebench iterations. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1840 points. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it reaches 7667 points. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it achieves 18255 points. Single-core scores are 259 (R15), 1082 (R20), and 2577 (R23). These scores place the Core 5 120 in the 77th percentile of all CPUs.

PassMark results for the Core 5 120 show a multi-thread score of 18597 and a single-thread score of 3595. Specific workload scores include integer math at 60462, floating point math at 45383, extended instructions at 14264, data compression at 219535, data encryption at 11131, find prime numbers at 77, physics at 1333, and random string sorting at 21499.

The nearest rival comparisons confirm the Core 5 120's competitive position. It scores within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13400F (25292 score, 0.3% delta), within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-11700KF (25423 score, -0.2% delta), and within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7840U (25432 score, -0.3% delta). The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D matches it exactly (25365 score, 0% delta).

With no benchmark data for the Core 3 201TE, the database records zero wins for each processor in head-to-head comparisons. The Core 3 201TE's lower core count (4 versus 6) and smaller L3 cache (12 MB versus 18 MB) suggest it will trail in multi-threaded workloads, while its higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.50 GHz) may narrow single-thread gaps.

Where Each One Wins

Core 5 120 wins in multi-threaded productivity. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration with 18 MB of L3 cache delivers substantially higher throughput in parallel workloads. Its benchmark scores confirm strong performance in Cinebench R23 multi-core (18255 points) and PassMark multi-thread (18597 points). The 77th percentile ranking places it among capable desktop processors. Users running video encoding, software compilation, or data processing will benefit from the additional cores and cache.

Core 5 120 wins in competitive performance parity. Its average benchmark score of 25362 places it exactly in line with the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D (25365), within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-11700KF (25423), and within 0.3% of the Intel Core i5-13400F (25292). This confirms consistent, well-rounded performance across a range of applications rather than specialization in one area.

Core 3 201TE wins in power efficiency. At 45W TDP versus 65W for the Core 5 120, the Core 3 201TE draws less power. This makes it suitable for compact systems with limited cooling or power delivery, where the higher TDP of the Core 5 120 may be prohibitive. The lower power envelope does not require giving up all performance: the boost clock of 4.60 GHz exceeds the Core 5 120's 4.50 GHz.

Core 3 201TE wins in reliability-focused configurations. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201TE but not on the Core 5 120. This matters for data integrity in applications where memory errors are unacceptable, such as specific server or scientific workloads.

Core 3 201TE wins on launch MSRP. The Core 3 201TE launched at $134, while the Core 5 120 launched at $211. The price difference reflects the specification gap.

Core 5 120 wins in overall performance percentile. The 77th percentile versus 50th percentile for the Core 3 201TE indicates the Core 5 120 outperforms a significantly larger share of the CPU landscape. Users who prioritize raw performance over power draw or ECC support should select the Core 5 120. Users who need ECC, lower power consumption, or a lower launch MSRP should select the Core 3 201TE.