AMD Ryzen 9 9900X vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X records an average benchmark score of 57498, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 211E posts an average score of 37829, which puts it in the 86th percentile. The AMD part sits closer to server-class silicon, with its nearest rivals including the AMD EPYC 9015 (57555, 0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i9-14900 (58115, 1.1% ahead).

Q: Which processor wins the majority of direct benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X wins 14 out of 15 head-to-head tests. The sole Intel victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 2878 against AMD's 2253, a 21.7% advantage for Intel.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers: AMD scores 436 versus Intel's 43, a 914% difference. The second-largest gap is in PassMark physics (381.6% in favor of AMD), followed by extended instructions at 155.8%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and the Intel Core 5 211E list ECC memory support as true. However, the memory standards differ: AMD supports DDR5 only, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed with a production status of "Active." The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X was released on 2024-08-14, while the Intel Core 5 211E followed later on 2025-01-12.

Q: How do the thread counts differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X provides 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 5 211E offers 10 cores and 16 threads. This 8-thread difference contributes heavily to AMD's multi-threaded benchmark leads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is the dominant multi-threaded performer, winning 14 of 15 head-to-head tests and leading by triple-digit percentages in several workloads. Its average benchmark score of 57498 versus Intel's 37829 represents a 52% overall advantage. The Intel Core 5 211E, however, takes a decisive single-core win in Cinebench R23 at 2878 versus 2253, a 21.7% margin. That single victory matters for lightly threaded tasks, but the rest of the single-thread data favors AMD: PassMark single-thread shows 4672 versus 4006 (16.6% for AMD), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 353 versus 289 (22.1% for AMD).

For users who primarily run heavily threaded workloads such as rendering, data compression, or physics simulation, the AMD part is the obvious pick based on the recorded scores. For those who prioritize one specific legacy single-core benchmark, the Intel part shows an edge, but that advantage does not carry across other single-thread tests. The Intel part also uses a 65 W TDP versus 120 W for AMD, but the benchmark database does not include power efficiency metrics, so no direct efficiency verdict can be drawn from the measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a nuanced picture. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 5008 against Intel's 2055, a 143.7% lead. In R23 multi-core, AMD scores 32172 against 20389, a 57.8% lead. The single-core results contradict each other across versions: R15 single-core favors AMD at 353 versus 289 (22.1%), but R23 single-core favors Intel at 2878 versus 2253 (21.7% for Intel). This inversion suggests the two architectures respond differently to the workload scaling in each Cinebench version.

The PassMark suite provides the most lopsided results. AMD leads data compression by 97.1% (683579 versus 346757), data encryption by 86.3% (33421 versus 17938), extended instructions by 155.8% (55243 versus 21592), floating point math by 80.8% (120083 versus 66402), integer math by 105.5% (181056 versus 88117), multithread by 129.3% (54643 versus 23833), physics by 381.6% (3381 versus 702), random string sorting by 109.9% (72013 versus 34308), and find prime numbers by 914% (436 versus 43). PassMark single-thread and singlethread both show AMD at 4672 versus 4006, a 16.6% edge.

The physics test is particularly stark: AMD's 3381 versus Intel's 702. That 381.6% gap indicates a substantial difference in computational throughput for physics-based simulation workloads. The find prime numbers result, with AMD at 436 and Intel at 43, is the single most extreme delta in the entire dataset, pointing to a very large algorithmic efficiency difference in prime-number search tasks.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: AMD uses 12 cores and 24 threads, Intel uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: AMD at 4.40 GHz versus Intel at 2.70 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: AMD at 5.60 GHz versus Intel at 4.90 GHz. TDP ratings differ: AMD at 120 W versus Intel at 65 W.

Socket compatibility diverges: AMD uses Socket AM5, Intel uses Socket 1700. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. Memory support differs: AMD supports DDR5 only, Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is rated at 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 76.8 GB/s for Intel. PCIe lanes differ: AMD provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Cache configurations differ: both have 80 KB L1 per core, but AMD has 1 MB L2 per core versus Intel's 2 MB per core. L3 cache differs dramatically: AMD has 64 MB, Intel has 20 MB shared. Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon Graphics, Intel uses UHD Graphics 730. Part numbers also differ: AMD's is 100-000000662, Intel's is SRQERQ65F.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Granite Ridge codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16,630 million transistors across a dual-chiplet design with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a single die size of 257 mm². AMD's generation is listed as Ryzen 9 (Zen 5 (Granite Ridge)), while Intel's is Core 5 (Bartlett Lake). The manufacturing node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which helps explain the transistor density disparity, although Intel's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

The memory controllers differ: AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. This gives Intel flexibility for older memory platforms but also means AMD's memory bandwidth rating is higher at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory, a feature typically associated with workstation and server use cases. The PCIe implementations also differ: AMD provides 24 Gen 5 lanes, Intel provides 16 Gen 5 lanes, which affects expansion capability for GPUs and NVMe storage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X wins across nearly every measured workload category. In multi-threaded rendering, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 57.8% advantage and R15 multi-core shows 143.7%. For data-heavy tasks, AMD leads compression by 97.1% and encryption by 86.3%. For computational math, AMD leads integer math by 105.5%, floating point by 80.8%, extended instructions by 155.8%, and prime number finding by 914%. For simulation and physics, AMD leads by 381.6%. For general multithreaded throughput, AMD leads by 129.3% in PassMark multithread. Even in single-threaded work, AMD leads PassMark single-thread by 16.6% and Cinebench R15 single-core by 22.1%.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins exactly one head-to-head test: Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 21.7% margin over AMD. This suggests a specific advantage in that particular benchmark's single-threaded workload, likely due to architectural differences in how the two chips handle the R23 instruction mix. However, this win does not extend to other single-thread tests, where AMD maintains leads of 16.6% and 22.1%. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 120 W, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which may matter for platform compatibility, but the database does not record power efficiency or platform cost data. The Intel part's 2 MB L2 per core versus AMD's 1 MB per core is a notable cache difference, yet the benchmark results do not show it translating into broad performance wins.