CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a story of total dominance by the AMD EPYC 75F3, which wins all six head-to-head tests with a consistent deltaPct of approximately -77.7% to -77.8% relative to the Intel Core 5 211TE. This means the EPYC 75F3 scores roughly 4.5 times higher across every Cinebench workload, both single-core and multi-core. The Intel Core 5 211TE does not secure a single benchmark victory in this comparison, making the choice straightforward for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance.

The Intel Core 5 211TE, with its 45W TDP and 10 cores, is positioned for a fundamentally different workload profile. Its average benchmark score of 15370 sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD EPYC 75F3 achieves an average of 15859 at the 70th percentile. The near-identical average scores obscure the massive gap in specific tests, but the percentile data suggests both are mid-to-high tier performers overall. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 (avg score 15477, -0.7% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (avg score 15682, -2% delta), indicating it competes in a different class than the EPYC 75F3, whose rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (avg score 15882, -0.1% delta) and the AMD EPYC 9354P (avg score 15826, +0.2% delta).

For users, the verdict is clear: the AMD EPYC 75F3 is the only choice if the workload demands maximum compute, with a 280W TDP and 32 cores driving multi-threaded scores like 54829 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the Intel's 12201. The Intel Core 5 211TE makes sense only for scenarios where the 45W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 730, and lower thermal footprint are non-negotiable constraints, accepting a massive performance penalty in exchange for efficiency and platform simplicity.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins every multi-core test decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 54829 against the Intel Core 5 211TE's 12201, a delta of -77.7%. Similar gaps appear in Cinebench R15 (5526 vs 1229, -77.8%) and R20 (23028 vs 5124, -77.7%).

Q: Is there any single-core test where the Intel part is competitive?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests with the same -77.8% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7740 versus the Intel's 1722, showing the AMD core architecture holds a massive advantage even without multi-threading.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45W, while the AMD EPYC 75F3 has a TDP of 280W. This six-fold difference in thermal design power reflects the EPYC's server-oriented design with 32 cores and 64 threads, versus the Intel's 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211TE and AMD EPYC 75F3 support ECC memory. However, the memory channels and bandwidth differ significantly, with the EPYC featuring eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s versus the Intel's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 at 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has more cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 211TE has 20 MB. Per-core L1 and L2 caches also differ, with the Intel offering 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core versus the EPYC's 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core.

Q: How do these CPUs compare in overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 15370. The AMD EPYC 75F3 sits at the 70th percentile with an average of 15859. Despite the 4.5x performance gap in Cinebench, their overall averages are close due to other benchmark categories where the Intel part performs relatively better.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark and explains the benchmark results. The Intel Core 5 211TE is built on Intel's 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry, using the Bartlett Lake codename with a die size of 215 mm². It features 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid or efficiency-focused design with a base clock of 1.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The architecture details are sparse in the benchmark database, but the "Core 5 (Bartlett Lake)" generation label places it in Intel's recent desktop lineup with a Socket 1700 interface.

The AMD EPYC 75F3 uses a completely different approach. It is built on TSMC's 7 nm process node, using the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename. The die is composed of 8x 81 mm² chiplets, totaling 33,200 million transistors, a massive scale compared to the Intel's monolithic 215 mm² die. With 32 cores and 64 threads, the EPYC doubles and quadruples the Intel's core and thread counts respectively. Its base clock of 2.95 GHz is higher than the Intel's 1.70 GHz, though the boost clock of 4.00 GHz is lower, suggesting the EPYC prioritizes sustained throughput over peak single-thread speed.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The Intel part offers 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has smaller per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (512 KB) but a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache, 12.8 times larger than the Intel's L3. This cache advantage, combined with eight-channel memory support versus dual-channel, gives the EPYC a substantial memory subsystem advantage for data-intensive workloads.

The process node difference (10 nm vs 7 nm) and foundry choice (Intel vs TSMC) reflect different manufacturing strategies, with the EPYC's chiplet design enabling higher core counts at the cost of a 280W TDP versus the Intel's 45W. The Intel part includes integrated UHD Graphics 730, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics, underscoring their divergent target markets.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | AMD EPYC 75F3 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 32 |

| Threads | 16 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.95 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45W | 280W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 33,200 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $4860 |

The specification table reveals the fundamental design philosophy differences. The Intel part is a low-power desktop chip with a high boost clock (4.80 GHz) and modest core count, while the AMD part is a server monster with 3.2x more cores, 4x more threads, and 2.67x more memory bandwidth. The EPYC's PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes dwarfs the Intel's Gen 5 with 16 lanes, indicating the EPYC is designed for heavy I/O expansion in server environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly lopsided, with the AMD EPYC 75F3 winning all six tests by virtually identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5526 against the Intel's 1229, a delta of -77.8%. The single-core R15 test shows the same delta: 780 versus 173. This consistency across both multi-core and single-core tests suggests the performance gap is not merely a core-count advantage but reflects a fundamental IPC and clock efficiency difference.

Cinebench R20 follows the identical pattern. Multi-core results show 23028 for the EPYC versus 5124 for the Intel, a -77.7% delta. Single-core R20 yields 3250 versus 723, again -77.8%. The R23 results continue the trend with the EPYC scoring 54829 in multi-core versus 12201 for the Intel (-77.7%) and 7740 versus 1722 in single-core (-77.8%).

The fact that the deltaPct remains nearly constant at -77.7% to -77.8% across all tests is remarkable. It indicates that the EPYC 75F3 delivers roughly 4.5 times the performance of the Intel Core 5 211TE in every Cinebench workload, regardless of threading. This uniformity suggests the performance ratio is a property of the two architectures' efficiency at the tested clock speeds, not a function of workload characteristics.

For the Intel Core 5 211TE, its benchmark scores outside Cinebench, such as 133434 in PassMark data compression, 26150 in floating point math, and 33991 in integer math, are not directly comparable since the EPYC 75F3 lacks those specific test results in the benchmark database. The head-to-head tests focus exclusively on Cinebench, where the EPYC's dominance is absolute with 6 wins and 0 losses.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins in every measured benchmark category, making it the clear choice for compute-intensive workloads. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 256 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, position it for multi-threaded server tasks like database processing, virtualization, and scientific computing. The single-core wins (780 vs 173 in R15, 3250 vs 723 in R20, 7740 vs 1722 in R23) also demonstrate that even lightly-threaded applications benefit from the EPYC's higher base clock of 2.95 GHz and superior IPC. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and eight-channel memory make it suited for workloads requiring massive I/O throughput and memory capacity, though the benchmark database does not provide specific workload benchmarks beyond Cinebench.

The Intel Core 5 211TE, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has strengths in areas not covered by the comparison benchmarks. Its 45W TDP versus the EPYC's 280W means it generates significantly less heat and requires less cooling, making it suitable for compact desktop builds or fanless systems. The integrated UHD Graphics 730 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support offers memory flexibility, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes provides modern connectivity despite fewer lanes. The Intel part's PassMark scores, such as 133434 in data compression, 7231 in data encryption, and 14838 in random string sorting, indicate reasonable performance in specific single-threaded or moderately threaded tasks, though these are not compared directly against the EPYC.

The percentile data places the Intel at 69th and the EPYC at 70th percentile of all CPUs, suggesting that in the broader benchmark landscape, the two chips land in similar overall tiers despite the Cinebench disparity. This implies the Intel part excels in other benchmark categories not part of the head-to-head set. The Intel's nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 7543 at -0.7% delta, shows it competes with server chips in average score, while the EPYC 75F3's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 40 at -0.1% delta, indicating a different competitive neighborhood.

For use-case selection: choose the AMD EPYC 75F3 for any workload where Cinebench scores are representative, rendering, simulation, compilation, or heavy multitasking. Choose the Intel Core 5 211TE for energy-conscious desktop applications, systems requiring integrated graphics, or scenarios where the 45W TDP and Socket 1700 platform are mandatory constraints, accepting the 4.5x performance deficit.