AMD Ryzen 3 110 vs Intel Core 5 211TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark records for the AMD Ryzen 3 110 against the Intel Core 5 211TE. However, the Intel Core 5 211TE has a full suite of recorded benchmark scores, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark entries in the database. This asymmetry means direct numerical comparisons cannot be made, but the Intel part's standalone results provide a reference point for its capabilities.

The Intel Core 5 211TE delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12201 and a single-core score of 1722. In Cinebench R20, it scores 5124 multi-core and 723 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 1229 multi-core and 173 single-core. These scores indicate a processor that scales well across workloads, with the multi-core figures roughly seven times higher than the single-core figures in each Cinebench version, consistent with its 10 cores and 16 threads.

PassMark results for the Intel Core 5 211TE show a multi-thread score of 11685 and a single-thread score of 1408. The integer math score is 33991, while floating point math reaches 26150. Data compression scores 133434, and data encryption scores 7231. Extended instructions score 8615, and find prime numbers scores 72. Random string sorting scores 14838, and physics scores 1278. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 15370, placing the processor at the 69th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has a percentile rank of 50, but with no average benchmark score recorded, its relative performance cannot be quantified. The nearest rivals for the Intel Core 5 211TE provide context: the AMD EPYC 7543 averages 15477, which is 0.7% higher. The AMD EPYC 7702P averages 15130, which is 1.6% lower. The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U averages 15682, which is 2% higher. The Intel Core i3-1315U averages 15022, which is 2.3% lower. These deltas are all within a narrow band, suggesting the Intel Core 5 211TE sits in a tightly contested performance tier.

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 211TE boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 0.50 GHz.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, which is 12 MB more.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 supports DDR5 only. The Intel Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE ranks at the 69th percentile among all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 ranks at the 50th percentile, though it has no recorded benchmark score to support its ranking.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear structural advantage for the Intel Core 5 211TE in terms of core count, thread count, cache size, and boost clock. With 10 cores and 16 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads, the Intel part offers more than double the parallelism. Its 20 MB L3 cache dwarfs the AMD part's 8 MB, and its 4.80 GHz boost clock exceeds the AMD part's 4.30 GHz. The Intel part also has a recorded average benchmark score of 15370, placing it at the 69th percentile, while the AMD part has no recorded scores.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 does hold advantages in process node (6 nm versus 10 nm) and TDP (28 W versus 45 W), indicating better power efficiency per the specifications. It also uses a newer architecture generation, Zen 3+ (Rembrandt-R), versus Intel's Bartlett Lake. However, without benchmark data for the AMD part, the recorded results all favor the Intel Core 5 211TE. Users who require multi-threaded throughput, larger cache capacity, or higher single-core burst speeds should select the Intel part based on the available data. Users who prioritize lower power consumption or a smaller process node may consider the AMD part, but its performance cannot be verified from the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 110 | Intel Core 5 211TE |

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

| Cores | 4 | 10 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 1.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 215 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 660M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $221 |

| Part Number | 100-000000549 (FP7r2) | SRQDL |

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is built on the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename, using a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. These process differences imply the AMD part has a denser transistor layout, though the die sizes are nearly identical at 210 mm² for AMD and 215 mm² for Intel.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel part has 10 cores and 16 threads. Per-core cache allocations also differ: the AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the Intel part provides 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is 8 MB shared on AMD versus 20 MB shared on Intel.

Memory support differs in range. The AMD part supports only DDR5, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, offering more flexibility for platform compatibility. Both have dual-channel memory buses with identical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU-only lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes. The Intel part's Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the AMD part provides more total lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses a Radeon 660M, while the Intel Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The AMD part's market segment is mobile, reflected in its FP7 socket and lower TDP of 28 W. The Intel part is a desktop chip on Socket 1700 with a 45 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211TE wins in all recorded benchmark categories due to the absence of AMD benchmark data. Its multi-core performance, as shown by Cinebench R23 at 12201 and PassMark multi-thread at 11685, benefits from 10 cores and 16 threads. The larger 20 MB L3 cache likely aids workloads that repeatedly access shared data, such as database operations or compilation tasks. The higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz supports single-thread responsiveness, reflected in a PassMark single-thread score of 1408.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 wins on efficiency metrics from the specification sheet. Its 28 W TDP is substantially lower than the Intel part's 45 W, making it suited for thermally constrained mobile environments. The 6 nm process node indicates a more advanced manufacturing technology. Its Radeon 660M integrated graphics may offer different multimedia capabilities than Intel's UHD Graphics 730, though no benchmark data confirms either. The AMD part also provides more PCIe lanes (20 versus 16), which could benefit configurations with multiple Gen 4 devices.

The Intel part's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its average score of 15370, with deltas ranging from -2% to +2.3%. This indicates the Intel Core 5 211TE performs competitively within its tier. The AMD Ryzen 3 110, lacking any recorded scores, cannot be placed in the same comparison framework. Users seeking verified performance data should rely on the Intel part's recorded results; users prioritizing power efficiency and a smaller process node have specification-level reasons to consider the AMD part, but its benchmark outcomes remain unmeasured in the database.