Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 5 320 Comparison
Intel Core 5 211E
Core 5 320
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 5 320
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?
A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 5 320 scores 6197. This gives the 211E a 229% advantage, the largest multi-core margin in the recorded data.
Q: Does the Intel Core 5 320 win any benchmark?
A: Yes, it wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests. It leads in PassMark find prime numbers (110 vs 43, a 60.9% advantage), PassMark physics (1221 vs 702, a 42.5% advantage), and PassMark single thread (4045 vs 4006, a 1% advantage).
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 320 averages 18023, which lands in the 72nd percentile.
Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip?
A: The 211E sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, only 0.2% higher) and Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, 0.2% higher). The 320 is close to the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (17994, 0.2% higher) and Intel Core i5-1334U (18154, 0.7% higher).
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 5 320 does not.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses single-channel memory.
Architecture Differences
The Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core 5 320 belong to different Intel generations and use distinct process nodes. The 211E is built on Bartlett Lake using Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 257 mm². The 320 comes from Wildcat Lake and uses a 3 nm process, though its die size is not recorded in the database.
Core counts differ substantially. The 211E provides 10 cores and 16 threads, while the 320 offers 6 cores and 6 threads. The 211E has no hyperthreading advantage over itself; the thread count difference comes from the core arrangement. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 211E uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and only 6 MB shared L3.
Clock speeds tell a similar story. The 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz. The 320 starts at 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.60 GHz. The 211E runs at a 65 W TDP, while the 320 is rated at 15 W, reflecting their different market segments: desktop versus mobile.
Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. The 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 across dual channels with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 320 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single channel with 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the 211E offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 320 provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.
Integrated graphics are separate as well. The 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the 320 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The 211E uses Socket 1700, whereas the 320 uses BGA 1516. Production status is active for both, but the 320 has a later release date.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data shows a dominant multi-core performance lead for the Intel Core 5 211E. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 211E scores 20389 against the 320's 6197, a 229% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 8563 versus 5462, a 56.8% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 2055 against 1054, a 95% lead.
Single-core Cinebench results are closer but still favor the 211E. Cinebench R23 single-core gives 2878 versus 1926, a 49.4% edge. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1208 against 771, a 56.7% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core narrows to 289 versus 276, only 4.7% apart.
PassMark integer math heavily favors the 211E at 88117 versus 32323, a 172.6% swing. Data compression shows 346757 against 148779, a 133.1% difference. Random string sorting records 34308 versus 18038, a 90.2% lead. Data encryption gives 17938 against 10984, a 63.3% edge. Extended instructions show 21592 versus 13262, a 62.8% margin. Floating point math lands at 66402 versus 42440, a 56.5% advantage. PassMark multithread scores 23833 against 15450, a 54.3% lead.
The Intel Core 5 320 wins four tests. PassMark physics shows 1221 versus 702, a 42.5% advantage for the 320. PassMark find prime numbers records 110 versus 43, a 60.9% lead. PassMark single thread gives 4045 versus 4006, a slim 1% edge. The single-thread test and the singlethread test are identical in score, both showing the same 1% delta.
The data indicates the 211E wins 13 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The 320's wins are concentrated in specific workloads: prime number searches, physics simulation, and single-threaded PassMark tasks. The 320's single-thread PassMark score of 4045 slightly exceeds the 211E's 4006, despite the 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core counts: 10 versus 6. Thread counts: 16 versus 6. Base clocks: 2.70 GHz versus 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks: 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 15 W.
Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the 211E, Intel BGA 1516 for the 320. The 211E uses Bartlett Lake on 10 nm with a 257 mm² die. The 320 uses Wildcat Lake on 3 nm with no recorded die size.
Cache layouts diverge completely. The 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The 320 has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: DDR4 and DDR5 for the 211E versus DDR5 and LPDDR5X for the 320. Memory bus width differs: dual-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.
ECC memory support is present on the 211E but absent on the 320. PCIe generation and lane counts differ: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes versus Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The market segment differs: desktop versus mobile. The 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, the 320 has a launch MSRP of $340. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core 5 211E wins across nearly every multi-threaded workload in the database. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 229% advantage, indicating heavy parallel workloads favor the 211E decisively. Integer math offers a 172.6% lead, data compression a 133.1% edge, and random string sorting a 90.2% margin. These results point to productivity, content creation, and data-processing tasks as clear 211E territory.
The 211E also leads in extended instructions by 62.8%, floating point math by 56.5%, and data encryption by 63.3%. Its multithread score beats the 320 by 54.3%. For any workload that scales across cores, the 211E with 10 cores and 16 threads has a substantial structural advantage over the 320's 6 cores and 6 threads.
The Intel Core 5 320 wins in fewer but distinct areas. Its PassMark physics score of 1221 beats the 211E's 702 by 42.5%, suggesting better performance in physics simulation workloads. The find prime numbers test shows 110 versus 43, a 60.9% advantage, indicating superior performance in prime-heavy integer workloads. Single-thread PassMark gives the 320 a narrow 1% lead, though Cinebench single-core tests all favor the 211E.
The 320's lower TDP of 15 W and mobile socket suggest efficiency-oriented use cases. Its 3 nm process likely contributes to its single-thread PassMark showing, though the database does not provide direct power efficiency metrics. The 320's wins come in lightweight, single-threaded, or specialized workloads where its core architecture appears more efficient per clock.
The Verdict
The benchmark data clearly separates these two processors by workload type and platform. The Intel Core 5 211E dominates multi-threaded performance with a 229% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 172.6% lead in integer math. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth make it the choice for desktop systems running parallel applications. The 211E also supports ECC memory and DDR4, broadening its compatibility with existing platforms.
The Intel Core 5 320, despite its lower core count and single-channel memory, wins in specific scenarios. Its PassMark physics score is 42.5% higher, its prime number finding is 60.9% faster, and its single-thread PassMark is 1% ahead. The 320's 15 W TDP and mobile socket suit compact, power-sensitive designs. Its 3 nm process and later release date suggest newer manufacturing, though the data shows it cannot match the 211E in most throughput tests.
The average benchmark scores summarize the gap: 37829 for the 211E versus 18023 for the 320. The percentile ranks confirm the separation, with the 211E in the 86th percentile and the 320 in the 72nd. The 211E's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Intel Core i9-14901E, both within 0.2% of its average score. The 320's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and Intel Core i5-1334U, with deltas under 1%.
Users needing maximum multi-core throughput, large cache, or ECC support should select the 211E. Users prioritizing low power draw, physics simulation, or specific single-threaded PassMark workloads should consider the 320. The data does not show the 320 outperforming the 211E in any Cinebench test, so rendering and content creation workloads belong to the 211E. The 320's wins are narrow and specialized, making it a niche option rather than a general-purpose alternative.