Intel Core 3 201TE vs Intel Core 5 130HL Comparison

Intel Core 3 201TE and Intel Core 5 130HL are two desktop processors sharing the same Intel Socket 1700 platform and a 45 W TDP, but they target different positions in the performance spectrum. The Core 3 201TE is a 4-core, 8-thread part built on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 5 130HL is a 12-core, 16-thread processor based on the Raptor Lake-PS architecture. Both chips are currently listed as Active in production status, and both are locked, with no unlocked multiplier available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 130HL wins in scenarios that scale with core count and thread count. It provides 12 cores and 16 threads, which is three times the core count of the Core 3 201TE and exactly double the thread count. Workloads such as compiled code, rendering, video encoding, and other parallel tasks benefit from the additional execution resources. The Core 5 130HL also carries a larger shared L3 cache of 18 MB, compared to 12 MB on the Core 3 201TE, which helps in multi-threaded applications that repeatedly access a working set larger than 12 MB. The higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz on the Core 5 130HL, versus 4.60 GHz on the Core 3 201TE, also gives it a slight advantage in lightly threaded bursts, though the base clock is lower at 2.60 GHz compared to 2.90 GHz.

The Intel Core 3 201TE wins in scenarios where power efficiency and single-core responsiveness at moderate loads matter more than raw thread counts. Its base clock of 2.90 GHz is higher than the 2.60 GHz base clock of the Core 5 130HL, meaning that at idle and low-utilization states, the Core 3 201TE can maintain a higher frequency with fewer active cores. The smaller 4-core, 8-thread configuration also reduces the number of active transistors and switching activity, which can translate into lower energy consumption for bursty, single-threaded tasks. The Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core 5 130HL, making it the appropriate choice for error-sensitive environments such as NAS boxes, small servers, or workstations where data integrity is prioritized over parallel throughput. Additionally, the Core 3 201TE uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, whereas the Core 5 130HL uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, so the Core 3 201TE offers more bandwidth for a single high-speed device such as a Gen 5 NVMe SSD or a high-end GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 3 201TE is based on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 5 130HL is based on the Raptor Lake-PS codename and uses the Raptor Lake architecture. Both are fabricated on a 10 nm process node at Intel, but the underlying design priorities differ. The Core 3 201TE is a 4-core, 8-thread design with hyper-threading enabled, giving it a 2:1 thread-to-core ratio. The Core 5 130HL is a 12-core, 16-thread design, which indicates a hybrid configuration or a mix of performance and efficiency cores, though the exact core type distribution is not specified in the recorded data.

Cache hierarchies differ in the L2 and L3 levels. The Core 3 201TE provides 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core 5 130HL provides 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core for both processors. The total L3 cache is 12 MB on the Core 3 201TE and 18 MB on the Core 5 130HL. The larger per-core L2 on the Core 5 130HL suggests that each core can hold more recently accessed data locally, reducing the need to fetch from the shared L3 or main memory. The Core 3 201TE has a die size of 163 mm², while the die size for the Core 5 130HL is not recorded in the database.

Memory support is similar in that both processors accept DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. However, the Core 3 201TE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, whereas the memory bandwidth for the Core 5 130HL is not recorded. ECC memory support is present on the Core 3 201TE and absent on the Core 5 130HL. PCIe capabilities differ substantially: the Core 3 201TE provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Core 5 130HL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 3 201TE using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core 5 130HL using Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, indicating a more capable integrated GPU on the Core 5 130HL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, and the average benchmark score for both is recorded as zero. The percentile versus all CPUs is identical at 50 for both, placing them at the median of the recorded CPU distribution. Because the recorded benchmark scores are zero, the analysis relies on architectural specifications and the known differences in core counts, cache sizes, and clock speeds.

The most significant performance differentiator is the core and thread count. The Core 5 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads on the Core 3 201TE. In multi-threaded workloads, the Core 5 130HL can execute three times the number of concurrent threads, assuming the workload is fully parallel and not limited by memory bandwidth. The larger 18 MB L3 cache on the Core 5 130HL also reduces memory latency for working sets that fit within that cache, which is critical for database queries, virtualized environments, and scientific simulations. The higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz on the Core 5 130HL versus 4.60 GHz on the Core 3 201TE gives it a 0.20 GHz advantage in single-threaded peak performance, though the base clock is 0.30 GHz lower. The net effect is that the Core 5 130HL can reach a higher peak frequency, but the Core 3 201TE maintains a higher frequency at lower loads.

In single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads, the Core 3 201TE may hold a slight advantage in sustained low-load scenarios because of its higher base clock of 2.90 GHz. However, the Core 5 130HL has a higher boost clock, so any workload that can trigger a boost on a single core will benefit from the extra 0.20 GHz. The Core 3 201TE also has a smaller physical footprint with a die size of 163 mm², which can reduce the thermal density, although the TDP is identical at 45 W for both processors. The lack of recorded benchmark data means that exact deltas cannot be quantified, but the architectural data indicates that the Core 5 130HL is the stronger multi-threaded part and the Core 3 201TE is the more efficient single-threaded part at low load.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 130HL has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

A: Yes, the Core 3 201TE supports ECC memory. The Core 5 130HL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speed between the two processors?

A: The Core 5 130HL has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Core 3 201TE boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a faster integrated GPU?

A: The Core 5 130HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Core 3 201TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The Iris Xe Graphics 80EU is the more capable integrated graphics solution.

Q: What is the L3 cache size difference?

A: The Core 3 201TE has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 130HL has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both the Core 3 201TE and the Core 5 130HL use Intel Socket 1700.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Cores: 4 on the Core 3 201TE versus 12 on the Core 5 130HL.
• Threads: 8 on the Core 3 201TE versus 16 on the Core 5 130HL.
• Base clock: 2.90 GHz on the Core 3 201TE versus 2.60 GHz on the Core 5 130HL.
• Boost clock: 4.60 GHz on the Core 3 201TE versus 4.80 GHz on the Core 5 130HL.
• Codename: Bartlett Lake on the Core 3 201TE versus Raptor Lake-PS on the Core 5 130HL.
• Architecture: not recorded for the Core 3 201TE versus Raptor Lake on the Core 5 130HL.
• Die size: 163 mm² on the Core 3 201TE versus not recorded on the Core 5 130HL.
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core on the Core 3 201TE versus 2 MB per core on the Core 5 130HL.
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared on the Core 3 201TE versus 18 MB shared on the Core 5 130HL.
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s on the Core 3 201TE versus not recorded on the Core 5 130HL.
• ECC memory support: true on the Core 3 201TE versus false on the Core 5 130HL.
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 3 201TE versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 5 130HL.
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 3 201TE versus Iris Xe Graphics 80EU on the Core 5 130HL.
• Release date: 2025-01-12 for the Core 3 201TE versus 2024-04-07 for the Core 5 130HL.
• Launch MSRP: $134 for the Core 3 201TE, no launch MSRP recorded for the Core 5 130HL.
• Part number: SRPKDQ5CK for the Core 3 201TE versus unknown for the Core 5 130HL.

The shared specifications include the 45 W TDP, the Intel Socket 1700, the 10 nm process node, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 80 KB L1 cache per core, the Active production status, and the locked multiplier. Both processors are in the Desktop market segment and are manufactured by Intel. The percentile versus all CPUs is 50 for both, and the average benchmark score is zero for both, indicating that the recorded database does not yet contain performance measurements for either processor.