Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 5 220H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy between these two Intel processors. The Intel Core 5 211E wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 220H wins only 2. The average benchmark score for the 211E is 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs tracked by the database. The 220H, by contrast, averages 28574, which lands in the 80th percentile.

The 211E is the stronger processor for nearly every compute-heavy workload measured. Its most dramatic advantage appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 20389 versus 11198 for the 220H, a 82.1% lead. Single-threaded performance also favors the 211E consistently, with a 55.3% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 17.7% lead in PassMark single-thread tests. Users who prioritize raw processing throughput should select the 211E.

The 220H does hold two specific wins, both in PassMark tests: find prime numbers (82 versus 43, a 47.6% advantage) and physics (1478 versus 702, a 52.5% advantage). These results indicate that the 220H has particular strengths in certain integer-heavy or physics-simulation workloads, despite trailing overall. The 220H also carries a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts for the 211E, which matters for systems where power draw is a constraint.

The market segments differ as well. The 211E is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700, while the 220H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1744. System builders choosing between them must first decide on the platform, as the sockets are not interchangeable. The 211E also supports ECC memory, while the 220H does not, which makes the desktop part the appropriate choice for reliability-sensitive environments.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Intel 10 nm process node and are both manufactured by Intel, but they come from different design families. The 211E is based on the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation (Bartlett Lake). The 220H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation.

Core counts differ. The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. Both share identical base clocks of 2.70 GHz and identical boost clocks of 4.90 GHz. The extra two cores in the 220H do not translate into a multi-core advantage in the benchmark data, which suggests that other architectural factors dominate.

Cache configurations also diverge. The 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 220H has 18 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The larger L3 pool on the 211E likely contributes to its superior performance in memory-sensitive workloads.

Memory support is similar: both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The 211E has a specified memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the 220H does not have a bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is supported on the 211E only, which is a notable distinction for workstation or server use.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 220H provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the 220H uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The 220H's integrated GPU is likely more capable for display tasks, but the benchmark data does not include graphics tests.

The die size for the 211E is recorded at 257 mm², while the 220H has no die size listed. Both processors are active in production and have locked multipliers. Their release dates are close: the 220H launched on 2024-12-17, and the 211E followed on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP for the 211E is $221, and for the 220H it is $342.

Where Each One Wins

The 211E dominates in rendering and general compute benchmarks. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2055 versus 1835, a 12% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 8563 versus 7812, a 9.6% lead. The single-core Cinebench results show a similar pattern: R15 single-core gives 289 versus 262 (10.3% lead), and R20 single-core gives 1208 versus 1102 (9.6% lead).

The gap widens substantially in the newer Cinebench R23 tests. The 211E leads by 82.1% in multi-core (20389 versus 11198) and by 55.3% in single-core (2878 versus 1853). These are the largest deltas in the entire head-to-head set, indicating that the 211E scales much better under modern rendering workloads.

PassMark results also favor the 211E across most categories. Data compression shows a 39.9% lead (346757 versus 247921), extended instructions show a 47.5% lead (21592 versus 14642), floating point math shows a 28.5% lead (66402 versus 51671), and integer math shows a 19.8% lead (88117 versus 73555). The 211E also wins in multithread (23833 versus 21884, 8.9% lead), random string sorting (34308 versus 28438, 20.6% lead), data encryption (17938 versus 15216, 17.9% lead), and single-thread tests (4006 versus 3405, 17.7% lead).

The 220H's two wins are narrow in terms of raw score but significant in percentage terms. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 82 against 43, a 47.6% advantage. In PassMark physics, it scores 1478 against 702, a 52.5% advantage. These results suggest that the 220H's architecture, despite fewer L3 cache and lower average scores, handles specific algorithmic patterns more efficiently. The physics result is particularly notable, as it is the single largest percentage win for either processor in the entire 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 220H averages 28574. The 211E also ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 80th percentile for the 220H.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 211E scores 20389 versus 11198 for the 220H, a 82.1% advantage. The second largest is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the 211E leads by 55.3% (2878 versus 1853).

Q: Are there any workloads where the 220H wins?

A: Yes, the 220H wins two PassMark tests: find prime numbers (82 versus 43, a 47.6% lead) and physics (1478 versus 702, a 52.5% lead). These are the only two head-to-head tests where the 220H records a higher score.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The 211E supports ECC memory, while the 220H does not. This is a key differentiator for systems that require error-correcting memory.

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

A: The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 211E wins the majority of multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each?

A: The 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop platform. The 220H uses Intel BGA 1744, which is a mobile platform. They are not compatible with each other's sockets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test delivers the most decisive result in the entire comparison. The 211E posts 20389 points, while the 220H manages only 11198, giving the 211E a 82.1% lead. This is the largest percentage delta of any benchmark in the dataset. The single-core version of the same test shows a 55.3% advantage for the 211E, with scores of 2878 and 1853 respectively. These two results alone establish the 211E as the superior choice for modern rendering workloads.

The Cinebench R15 and R20 tests show smaller but consistent leads for the 211E. In R15 multi-core, the 211E scores 2055 against 1835, a 12% advantage. In R15 single-core, the margin is 10.3% (289 versus 262). The R20 results are nearly identical in percentage terms: 9.6% for multi-core (8563 versus 7812) and 9.6% for single-core (1208 versus 1102). The consistency across these older Cinebench versions indicates that the 211E's architectural advantages are not specific to one test generation.

PassMark data compression shows a substantial gap. The 211E scores 346757, while the 220H scores 247921, a 39.9% lead. Extended instructions follow a similar pattern, with the 211E at 21592 and the 220H at 14642, a 47.5% advantage. Floating point math favors the 211E by 28.5% (66402 versus 51671), and integer math favors it by 19.8% (88117 versus 73555). Random string sorting gives the 211E a 20.6% lead (34308 versus 28438), while data encryption shows a 17.9% lead (17938 versus 15216).

The PassMark multithread test is closer than the Cinebench results might suggest. The 211E scores 23833, and the 220H scores 21884, a modest 8.9% advantage for the 211E. Single-thread results show a 17.7% lead for the 211E, with scores of 4006 and 3405. These results indicate that the 211E's per-core efficiency more than compensates for the 220H's two additional cores.

The 220H's wins are confined to two specific PassMark subtests. In find prime numbers, the 220H scores 82 against 43, a 47.6% lead. In physics, it scores 1478 against 702, a 52.5% lead. These are the only tests where the 220H outperforms the 211E, and both are narrow in absolute terms despite large percentage gaps. The physics result, in particular, suggests that the 220H's Raptor Lake architecture has specialized strengths that do not generalize to broader workloads.

Overall, the head-to-head data records 15 wins for the 211E and 2 wins for the 220H. The 211E's average score of 37829 places it among rivals such as the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, 0.2% higher) and the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, 0.2% higher). The 220H's average of 28574 sits near the AMD EPYC 7203P (28583, 0% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS (28549, 0.1% difference). These positioning data confirm that the 211E competes in a higher performance tier than the 220H, despite both carrying the Core 5 branding.