Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 5 213PTE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE has an average score of 32924. The 211E also sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, three points higher than the 213PTE's 83rd percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE scores 21751 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 6.3% ahead of the Intel Core 5 211E's 20389. This is one of the 213PTE's 11 benchmark wins out of 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the Intel Core 5 211E wins by a large margin?

A: Yes, the 211E leads by 33.7% in PassMark extended instructions (21592 vs 16146) and by 32.8% in PassMark data compression (346757 vs 261083). It also wins PassMark data encryption by 24.5% (17938 vs 14413).

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

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE has 8 cores and 16 threads. Both support dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 213PTE has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, compared to the 4.90 GHz of the Intel Core 5 211E. The 213PTE also has a higher base clock advantage in single-threaded PassMark tests, scoring 3718 versus 4006 for the 211E.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket and integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700 and integrate UHD Graphics 730. They also share the same 10 nm process node, Bartlett Lake codename, and support PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Bartlett Lake family on Intel's 10 nm process node, but their internal configurations differ in several meaningful ways. The Intel Core 5 211E uses 10 cores with 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 213PTE uses 8 cores with 16 threads, meaning the 213PTE relies more heavily on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count.

Cache allocation is a key differentiator. The 211E carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 213PTE has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, a 4 MB advantage despite having fewer physical cores. Both chips provide 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, so the per-core cache structure is identical. The larger L3 on the 213PTE likely contributes to its stronger multi-core Cinebench results despite the core deficit.

Clock speeds also separate the two. The 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 213PTE starts at a lower 2.10 GHz base but reaches a higher 5.20 GHz boost. This higher boost ceiling helps the 213PTE in single-threaded workloads, while the 211E's higher base clock may provide steadier performance in sustained multi-threaded tasks.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the 211E is rated at 65 W, while the 213PTE is rated at 45 W. This means the 213PTE delivers its higher boost clock and larger L3 cache within a lower thermal envelope, which could be relevant for compact systems. The 211E has a larger die size at 257 mm², while the 213PTE's die size is not recorded in the database.

Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. They share PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, integrated UHD Graphics 730, and the same Intel Socket 1700. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both launched with the same MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two processors. The Intel Core 5 213PTE wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 211E wins 6. However, the magnitude of the wins varies considerably.

The 213PTE dominates in Cinebench across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2192 versus 2055, a 6.2% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 309 versus 289, a 6.5% gap. R20 multi-core results are 9135 versus 8563 (6.3% ahead), and R20 single-core is 1289 versus 1208 (6.3% ahead). R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 21751 versus 20389, again 6.3% ahead. R23 single-core is 3070 versus 2878, also 6.3% ahead. These consistent margins suggest a uniform clock-related advantage in CPU-bound workloads.

The 213PTE also wins in PassMark physics with an enormous 68.1% margin, scoring 2199 versus 702. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 72.6% advantage for the 213PTE (157 versus 43), the largest relative gap in any test. Floating point math goes to the 213PTE at 71722 versus 66402 (7.4% ahead), integer math at 93109 versus 88117 (5.4% ahead), and multithread at 25590 versus 23833 (6.9% ahead).

The Intel Core 5 211E counters with wins in specific PassMark workloads. Data compression is its largest victory: 346757 versus 261083, a 32.8% margin. Extended instructions show 21592 versus 16146, a 33.7% lead. Data encryption goes to the 211E at 17938 versus 14413, a 24.5% advantage. Random string sorting favors the 211E at 34308 versus 30106 (14% ahead). Single-thread PassMark also goes to the 211E at 4006 versus 3718, a 7.7% gain, which is notable given the 213PTE's higher boost clock.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. Core count: 10 for the 211E versus 8 for the 213PTE. Base clock: 2.70 GHz versus 2.10 GHz. Boost clock: 4.90 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 45 W. L3 cache: 20 MB versus 24 MB. Die size: 257 mm² for the 211E, with no recorded die size for the 213PTE. Release date: the 211E launched on 2025-01-12, while the 213PTE launched on 2026-03-08. Part numbers also differ: SRQERQ65F for the 211E and SA4QM for the 213PTE.

Identical specifications include threads (16 each), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (2 MB per core), memory support (DDR4 and DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s), ECC support (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 lanes), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), socket (Intel Socket 1700), manufacturing process (10 nm), foundry (Intel), and launch MSRP ($221).

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core 5 213PTE is the stronger overall processor for general CPU workloads. Its 11 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests include all six Cinebench benchmarks, where it consistently leads by about 6.3%. The 213PTE also delivers dramatic wins in physics (68.1% ahead) and prime number finding (72.6% ahead), making it the better choice for computationally intensive single-threaded or mixed workloads.

The Intel Core 5 211E, while losing the majority of comparisons, holds clear advantages in data-centric tasks. Its 32.8% lead in data compression, 33.7% in extended instructions, and 24.5% in data encryption suggest that its 10 physical cores provide a real benefit in workloads that scale with core count rather than clock speed. The 211E also wins PassMark single-thread at 4006 versus 3718, a 7.7% margin that contradicts the 213PTE's higher boost clock.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture: 37829 for the 211E versus 32924 for the 213PTE. The 211E sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, while the 213PTE sits at the 83rd. The 211E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (0.2% ahead), while the 213PTE's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-12700 (0.1% ahead).

For buyers prioritizing raw multi-core throughput in Cinebench-style workloads, the 213PTE is the data-backed choice. For those working with compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets, the 211E offers substantial advantages despite its lower overall average score.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core 5 213PTE wins in: All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core, with consistent margins around 6.2% to 6.5%. PassMark physics shows a dominant 68.1% lead, and PassMark find prime numbers shows a 72.6% lead. It also wins floating point math (7.4% ahead), integer math (5.4% ahead), and multithread (6.9% ahead). These results point toward workloads that benefit from higher boost clocks and a larger L3 cache, such as rendering, simulation, and general compute tasks.

Intel Core 5 211E wins in: PassMark data compression (32.8% ahead), data encryption (24.5% ahead), extended instructions (33.7% ahead), random string sorting (14% ahead), and PassMark single-thread (7.7% ahead). These wins align with its 10-core configuration and higher base clock, making it the better option for database operations, compression workloads, cryptographic tasks, and other data-heavy applications where per-core throughput at sustained clocks matters more than peak boost frequency.