Intel Core 5 120 vs Intel Core 5 211TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 5 120 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 5 211TE. The margin varies dramatically by workload, from a narrow 4.3% lead in PassMark physics to a dominant 155.3% advantage in single-threaded tests. The Core 5 120 records a PassMark single-thread score of 3595 versus 1408 for the 211TE, a gap that underscores fundamental clock speed differences between the two parts.

Multi-core rendering tests show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 5 120 scores 18255 against 12201 for the 211TE, a 49.6% advantage. The same near-identical delta appears across the Cinebench suite: R15 multi-core shows 1840 versus 1229 (49.7%), R20 multi-core shows 7667 versus 5124 (49.6%), and single-core variants of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show exactly 49.7% leads for the Core 5 120. This consistency indicates that the performance gap is largely systematic rather than workload-specific.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest multi-threaded win for the Core 5 120. The score of 60462 against 33991 represents a 77.9% advantage, the second-largest delta in the entire comparison. Floating-point math follows closely with a 73.5% lead (45383 versus 26150). Extended instructions show a 65.6% gap (14264 versus 8615), while data compression trails at 64.5% (219535 versus 133434). These are substantial margins that indicate the Core 5 120 handles compute-heavy workloads with considerably more headroom.

The single-thread gap is the defining feature of this matchup. The 155.3% delta in PassMark single-thread tests dwarfs every other difference. The Core 5 120's base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz contrast sharply with the 211TE's 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. Despite the 211TE having a higher boost ceiling, the measured single-thread performance is far lower, suggesting that sustained single-core operation favors the Core 5 120 in real-world conditions.

Some workloads show only modest differences. PassMark find prime numbers scores 77 versus 72, a 6.9% gap. Physics simulation shows 1333 versus 1278, a 4.3% lead. Random string sorting is closer than most at 44.9% (21499 versus 14838), while data encryption sits at 53.9% (11131 versus 7231). These smaller gaps appear in workloads that may be less sensitive to raw clock speed and more dependent on memory latency or other factors.

The average benchmark score places the Core 5 120 at 25362 with a 77th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The 211TE averages 15370 and sits at the 69th percentile. In the database's nearest rival comparisons, the Core 5 120 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and the Intel Core i5-13400F, while the 211TE trades places with server-class AMD EPYC parts and mobile chips, landing 2.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-1315U and 2% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice: the Intel Core 5 120 is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable category. For users prioritizing raw performance in both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications, the Core 5 120 delivers substantially higher scores across all 17 benchmark comparisons. Its 77th percentile ranking versus the 211TE's 69th percentile confirms the overall standing.

The 211TE offers a different trade-off. It carries a 45 W TDP against the Core 5 120's 65 W, meaning it draws less power under load. It also supports ECC memory, which the Core 5 120 does not. These factors make the 211TE a candidate for systems where power efficiency and error-correcting memory matter more than peak performance. The 211TE's lower average score, however, means that any workload benefiting from higher core counts (10 cores versus 6) does not translate into better benchmark outcomes. Despite having more cores and threads (10 cores, 16 threads versus 6 cores, 12 threads), the 211TE loses every multi-threaded test by a wide margin.

Users who need maximum compute throughput, faster rendering, quicker data compression, or better single-thread responsiveness should choose the Core 5 120 based on the recorded data. Users who need ECC memory support and lower power consumption should consider the 211TE, accepting the significant performance penalty documented in the benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Core 5 120 uses Raptor Lake, with the codename Raptor Lake-R and a generation designation of Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh). The 211TE uses Bartlett Lake, with no architecture field recorded but a codename of Bartlett Lake and a generation label of Core 5 (Bartlett Lake). Both are built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry.

Core counts differ notably. The 120 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 211TE uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite the 211TE having 4 more cores and 4 more threads, its benchmark scores fall far behind, which points to significantly lower per-core performance. The 120 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The 211TE has a 1.70 GHz base and a 4.80 GHz boost. The 120's higher base clock likely explains its dominant single-thread results.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs: the 120 has 18 MB shared, while the 211TE has 20 MB shared. Die size also differs, with the 120 measuring 163 mm² and the 211TE measuring 215 mm². Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, though the 211TE records a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s while the 120 does not have a recorded bandwidth figure.

The 211TE supports ECC memory; the 120 does not. Both use Intel Socket 1700, both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and both integrate UHD Graphics 730. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 120 launched with a release date of 2025-07-30 and a launch MSRP of $211, while the 211TE launched on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $221. Both parts are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 120 averages 25362 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 77th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 211TE averages 15370, at the 69th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Core 5 120 in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread tests, the Core 5 120 scores 3595 versus 1408 for the 211TE, a 155.3% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2577 versus 1722, a 49.7% lead.

Q: Does the 211TE's higher core count help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite 10 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads for the 120, the 211TE loses all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The closest result is PassMark physics, where the 120 leads by only 4.3% (1333 versus 1278).

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 120 does not list ECC support in the recorded data.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The 211TE has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 120 has 18 MB. Both use 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core.

Q: What are the power ratings of each processor?

A: The Core 5 120 has a 65 W TDP, while the 211TE has a 45 W TDP. The 211TE consumes less power but also delivers substantially lower benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 120 wins every recorded benchmark category. Its largest advantages appear in single-threaded workloads (155.3% over the 211TE), integer math (77.9%), floating-point math (73.5%), and extended instructions (65.6%). These results make the 120 the clear choice for rendering, data compression, encryption, sorting, and any application that scales with per-core throughput. Its Cinebench scores, which all show approximately 49.7% leads, indicate strong performance in 3D rendering workloads across every version of the test.

The 211TE's recorded wins are limited to specification advantages rather than benchmark outcomes. It offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the 120. It also has a lower 45 W TDP, which may be preferable for thermally constrained systems. Its higher core count of 10 and larger 20 MB L3 cache are specification advantages, but the benchmark data does not translate those into performance wins. The 211TE's closest benchmark result, PassMark physics at 4.3% behind, shows that it can approach the 120 in specific simulation workloads, but it does not surpass it in any recorded test.

The 211TE's nearest rivals in the database include server processors like the AMD EPYC 7543 and AMD EPYC 7702P, as well as mobile parts like the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U and Intel Core i3-1315U. This grouping suggests its performance class is closer to entry-level and server-efficiency parts than to mainstream desktop chips. The 120, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X3D and Intel Core i5-13400F, both of which are mainstream desktop processors with similar average scores.

The performance split is straightforward: the 120 wins on every benchmark metric, often by large margins, while the 211TE wins on power efficiency, ECC support, and core-count specifications. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes measured performance or the 211TE's specific feature set.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields. The 120 uses Raptor Lake architecture with Raptor Lake-R codename, while the 211TE uses Bartlett Lake with no architecture field recorded. The 120 has 6 cores and 12 threads; the 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ at 2.50 GHz versus 1.70 GHz, and boost clocks differ at 4.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP is 65 W for the 120 and 45 W for the 211TE. Die size measures 163 mm² for the 120 and 215 mm² for the 211TE. L3 cache is 18 MB for the 120 and 20 MB for the 211TE. Only the 211TE records a memory bandwidth figure of 76.8 GB/s. Only the 211TE supports ECC memory. Release dates are 2025-07-30 for the 120 and 2025-01-12 for the 211TE. Launch MSRP is $211 for the 120 and $221 for the 211TE. Part numbers are SA35V for the 120 and SRQDL for the 211TE. Both share the same socket, process node, foundry, L1 and L2 cache configuration, memory support, memory bus, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and locked multiplier status.