AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents a clear split between these two processors. The Intel Core 5 211E wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, including every major multi-core rendering test and most single-thread workloads. Its average benchmark score of 37,829 places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 sits at an 80th percentile with an average score of 27,932. That is a 35% gap in aggregate performance, and the Intel part also sits closer to stronger rivals: its nearest competitor, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, scores 37,804 (only 0.1% behind), whereas the AMD chip's closest rival, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, scores 27,896 (0.1% ahead).

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins only two tests: prime number finding (74 versus 43, a 72.1% advantage) and the physics simulation test (1,084 versus 702, a 54.4% advantage). These wins point to specific strengths in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive algorithms, but they do not compensate for the sweeping defeats elsewhere. For users who prioritize sustained multi-threaded throughput, the Intel Core 5 211E is the dominant choice. For workloads that involve prime-finding or physics calculations, the AMD part has a measurable edge, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Krackan Point, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The chip's thermal design power is 28 W, which is remarkably low for its performance class. It is a mobile-oriented part, using the AMD Socket FP8, and its die size is 195 mm². The cache hierarchy is per-core for L1 (80 KB) and L2 (1 MB per core), with a smaller 8 MB L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, offering 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon 840M.

The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process, and is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP. It has 10 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the die is larger at 257 mm². Cache organization differs: L1 is also 80 KB per core, but L2 is 2 MB per core, and L3 is 20 MB shared, which is 2.5 times larger than the AMD chip's 8 MB. Memory support covers both DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support. PCIe is Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, a generation ahead. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730.

The process node difference (4 nm versus 10 nm) explains much of the power disparity: the AMD chip draws less than half the TDP of the Intel part, yet the Intel part delivers far higher scores. The larger L3 cache and higher core count on the Intel side are likely major contributors to its multi-core dominance. The AMD chip compensates with higher memory bandwidth and a newer process, but the raw compute advantage clearly belongs to Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in every category that involves sustained parallel throughput or heavy arithmetic. It takes Cinebench R23 multi-core by 43.4% (20,389 versus 11,534), data compression by 36.1% (346,757 versus 221,581), encryption by 37.5% (17,938 versus 11,212), floating-point math by 40.3% (66,402 versus 39,662), integer math by 28.2% (88,117 versus 63,233), and multithreaded PassMark by 19.4% (23,833 versus 19,215). It also wins single-thread tests: Cinebench R23 single-core by 37.4% (2,878 versus 1,802) and PassMark single-thread by 6.2% (4,006 versus 3,758). Even random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive task, goes to Intel by 29.1% (34,308 versus 24,334).

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins only where the workload involves specialized integer operations or physics simulation. Prime number finding shows a 72.1% advantage (74 versus 43), which is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Physics simulation shows a 54.4% advantage (1,084 versus 702). These are narrow but consistent wins, suggesting the Zen 5 architecture has an edge in certain algorithmic patterns, possibly due to its lower-latency branch handling or specific instruction optimizations. Outside those two tests, the AMD chip trails by margins ranging from 4.5% (Cinebench R15 single-core) to 43.4% (Cinebench R23 multi-core).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37,829, compared to 27,932 for the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340. The Intel part sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits in the 80th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core 5 211E scores 20,389 versus 11,534 for the AMD chip, a 43.4% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the gap is smaller at 15.2% (2,055 versus 1,743).

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD chip beats Intel?

A: Yes, two. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins prime number finding by 72.1% (74 versus 43) and physics simulation by 54.4% (1,084 versus 702) in PassMark tests.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 2 MB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has 1 MB of L2 per core and 8 MB of L3, so Intel's shared L3 is 2.5 times larger.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 W, more than double.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest victory for the Intel Core 5 211E comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20,389 against 11,534, a delta of 43.4%. This is the clearest indicator of the Intel chip's advantage in heavily threaded rendering workloads. The same pattern appears in floating-point math: Intel scores 66,402 versus 39,662, a 40.3% lead. Data encryption shows a 37.5% gap (17,938 versus 11,212), and data compression shows a 36.1% gap (346,757 versus 221,581). Even single-core performance, often a strong suit for Zen 5, favors Intel: Cinebench R23 single-core gives Intel 2,878 versus 1,802, a 37.4% lead, and PassMark single-thread gives 4,006 versus 3,758, a 6.2% lead.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340's wins are dramatic in the opposite direction. Prime number finding shows a 72.1% advantage (74 versus 43), the highest relative performance of any test in the comparison. Physics simulation follows with a 54.4% advantage (1,084 versus 702). These two results suggest that the AMD architecture has a specialized strength in certain integer or simulation workloads that the Intel part cannot match, despite its overall superiority. The smallest Intel win is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by only 4.5% (289 versus 276), indicating that in short, lightly threaded bursts, the two are nearly equal.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 | Intel Core 5 211E |

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

| Cores | 6 | 10 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Not specified |

| Codename | Krackan Point | Bartlett Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen AI PRO 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 195 mm² | 257 mm² |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

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

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 840M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $221 |

| Part number | 100-000001600 | SRQERQ65F |

Both support ECC memory and are dual-channel, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part uses a larger process, more cores, more cache, and a higher TDP, while the AMD part counters with a smaller die, faster memory bandwidth, and a lower power envelope. The data confirms that these specification differences translate directly into the benchmark outcomes: Intel's extra cores and cache drive its multi-core wins, while AMD's process advantage only shows in two specialized tests.