Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 5 211TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Core 5 211E across nearly every workload category. Of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the 211E wins 15 while the 211TE wins only 2. The margin of victory is substantial in most cases, often exceeding 60%.

In Cinebench tests, the 211E holds a consistent advantage. The multicore scores show a 67.2% lead in Cinebench R15 (2055 vs 1229), a 67.1% lead in Cinebench R20 (8563 vs 5124), and a 67.1% lead in Cinebench R23 (20389 vs 12201). The single-core results mirror that pattern, with the 211E ahead by 67.1% in each of the R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. This uniformity across the three Cinebench versions indicates a stable clock-frequency advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

PassMark integer and floating-point math tests reinforce the same conclusion. The 211E scores 88117 in integer math versus 33991 for the 211TE, a 159.2% gap. Floating-point math shows a 153.9% difference (66402 vs 26150). Data compression follows at 159.9% (346757 vs 133434), and data encryption shows a 148.1% lead (17938 vs 7231). Extended instructions deliver 21592 for the 211E against 8615 for the 211TE, a 150.6% edge. Random string sorting favors the 211E by 131.2% (34308 vs 14838). The multithread score for the 211E is 23833, which is 104% ahead of the 211TE's 11685.

The single-thread PassMark result is the largest gap on the board. The 211E records 4006, which is 184.5% higher than the 211TE's 1408. That figure appears twice in the data, under both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, confirming the measurement.

The 211TE wins exactly two tests. In PassMark find prime numbers, the 211TE scores 72 against 43 for the 211E, giving it a 40.3% advantage. In PassMark physics, the 211TE scores 1278 versus 702, a 45.1% lead. These two wins suggest the 211TE has a specific strength in prime-number workloads and physics simulation, even while losing nearly everything else by large margins.

The average benchmark score for the 211E is 37829, placing it at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 211TE averages 15370, at the 69th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 211E are tightly clustered: AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804, 0.1% behind), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (37762, 0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, 0.2% ahead), and Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, 0.2% ahead). The 211E sits almost exactly at parity with these parts, within 0.2% in either direction. The 211TE's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC 7543 (15477, 0.7% ahead), AMD EPYC 7702P (15130, 1.6% behind), AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (15682, 2% ahead), and Intel Core i3-1315U (15022, 2.3% behind). The 211TE also sits close to its comparison group, within a 2.3% band.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Bartlett Lake codename, the 10 nm process node, and Intel as the foundry. They also share the Intel Socket 1700 package. Core and thread counts are identical: 10 cores and 16 threads on each part. The L1 cache is the same at 80 KB per core, and both have 20 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is identical as well: DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel, with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. Both ship with UHD Graphics 730 integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, and a launch MSRP of $221. Both were released on the same date and are marked as Active production parts. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The differences appear in the clock speeds, TDP, die size, and L2 cache. The 211E runs a base clock of 2.70 GHz with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 211TE runs a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. That is a 1.0 GHz gap at base frequency and a 0.1 GHz gap at boost. The TDP differs by 20 watts: 65 W for the 211E versus 45 W for the 211TE. The lower TDP of the 211TE explains its reduced base clock, as the power envelope is more constrained.

Die size also differs. The 211E measures 257 mm², while the 211TE measures 215 mm². The L2 cache is not the same despite the identical L1 and L3 figures. The 211E has 2 MB of L2 per core, while the 211TE has 1.25 MB per core. That per-core L2 difference compounds across 10 cores: the 211E has 20 MB of total L2, while the 211TE has 12.5 MB. The smaller L2 on the 211TE, combined with a lower base clock, accounts for much of the performance gap in the benchmark results.

The part numbers are also different: SRQERQ65F for the 211E and SRQDL for the 211TE.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors with identical core counts, thread counts, memory support, and integrated graphics, but with very different performance envelopes. The 211E is the faster part in nearly every measured workload. Its Cinebench multithread score is 67.1% higher than the 211TE, and its PassMark single-thread score is 184.5% higher. For users whose workloads depend on raw CPU throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the 211E is the clear pick from the data.

The 211TE wins in exactly two tests: find prime numbers and physics. The physics score of 1278 is 45.1% above the 211E's 702, and the prime-number score of 72 is 40.3% above the 211E's 43. These two results indicate that the 211TE handles certain specialized computation patterns better, possibly related to its different cache structure or clock behavior. However, these are isolated wins in a field of 17 comparisons.

The 211TE also operates at a lower TDP of 45 W versus 65 W for the 211E. That power difference may matter in thermally constrained systems, even though the performance cost is large. The 211TE's average benchmark score of 15370 places it at the 69th percentile, while the 211E sits at the 86th percentile with an average of 37829.

Users who prioritize maximum performance across general-purpose workloads should select the 211E based on the benchmark evidence. Users who require the lower 45 W power envelope and can accept significantly lower throughput in most tests may find the 211TE suitable, especially given its wins in physics and prime-number workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Base clock: 2.70 GHz (211E) vs 1.70 GHz (211TE)
• Boost clock: 4.90 GHz (211E) vs 4.80 GHz (211TE)
• TDP: 65 W (211E) vs 45 W (211TE)
• Die size: 257 mm² (211E) vs 215 mm² (211TE)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (211E) vs 1.25 MB per core (211TE)
• Part number: SRQERQ65F (211E) vs SRQDL (211TE)

All other specification fields are identical: 10 cores, 16 threads, 10 nm process, Intel Socket 1700, Bartlett Lake codename, 80 KB L1 per core, 20 MB shared L3, DDR4/DDR5 dual-channel memory, 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, UHD Graphics 730, Desktop market segment, Active production status, same release date, same launch MSRP, and a locked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which is 0.1 GHz higher than the 211TE's 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core 5 211TE support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel Core 5 211TE has a TDP of 45 W, a difference of 20 W.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829 and sits at the 86th percentile. The Intel Core 5 211TE has an average benchmark score of 15370 and sits at the 69th percentile.

Q: In which tests does the Intel Core 5 211TE outperform the 211E?

A: The 211TE wins PassMark find prime numbers (72 vs 43, a 40.3% advantage) and PassMark physics (1278 vs 702, a 45.1% advantage).

Q: Do the two processors share the same cache configuration?

A: No. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 20 MB of shared L3, but the L2 cache differs: 2 MB per core on the 211E versus 1.25 MB per core on the 211TE.