Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core 7 160HL holds a 4-core and 4-thread advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core 5 211E's 4.90 GHz boost. However, the Core 5 211E has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz compared to the Core 7 160HL's 2.50 GHz.

Q: What are the differences in integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe solution in the Core 7 160HL is the more capable graphics option.

Q: Do the processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160HL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the PCIe specifications for each chip?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Intel Core 7 160HL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 211E has a newer PCIe generation and double the lane count.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E ranks in the 86th percentile against all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 160HL ranks in the 50th percentile. The Core 5 211E has a substantially better standing in overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core 5 211E is built on the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake-PS codename with a Raptor Lake architecture. Both are fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node and are produced by Intel's own foundry. The die size for the Core 5 211E is 257 mm², while the die size for the Core 7 160HL is not recorded in the database.

Cache configurations differ in the last level. Both processors share the same L1 cache at 80 KB per core and the same L2 cache at 2 MB per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is larger on the Core 7 160HL at 24 MB, compared to 20 MB on the Core 5 211E. This 4 MB difference in shared cache can influence workloads with high data reuse across cores.

The Core 5 211E's Bartlett Lake design targets a desktop segment with a 65 W TDP, whereas the Core 7 160HL's Raptor Lake-PS design also targets the desktop segment but with a lower 45 W TDP. The Core 7 160HL achieves higher boost clocks despite the lower power envelope, indicating a different performance-per-watt tuning approach. The Core 5 211E counters with a higher base clock, which can benefit sustained all-core loads at lower frequencies.

Memory support is identical in type: both accept DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The Core 5 211E records a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7 160HL does not have a recorded bandwidth figure in the database. ECC memory support is present on the Core 5 211E but absent on the Core 7 160HL, making the former more suitable for error-sensitive compute environments.

PCIe connectivity is another clear architectural divider. The Core 5 211E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 7 160HL supports PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Core 5 211E both a newer interface standard and more lanes for expansion.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe solution typically provides stronger GPU compute and media capabilities.

Release timing differs as well. The Core 7 160HL was released on 2024-04-07, while the Core 5 211E was released on 2025-01-12. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty, so direct side-by-side test results are not available. However, the Core 5 211E has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores at all. This makes a numerical comparison impossible for specific workloads.

The Core 5 211E's average benchmark score is 37829, and it sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 160HL has an average benchmark score of 0, with a 50th percentile ranking. The database's nearest rivals for the Core 5 211E include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 with an average score of 37804, which is 0.1% lower; the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 with an average score of 37762, which is 0.2% lower; the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with an average score of 37904, which is 0.2% higher; and the Intel Core i9-14901E with an average score of 37911, which is 0.2% higher.

Looking at the Core 5 211E's individual recorded scores, the multicore results show a strong scaling pattern. It scores 2055 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 8563 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 20389 in Cinebench R23 multicore. Single-core results are 289 in Cinebench R15, 1208 in Cinebench R20, and 2878 in Cinebench R23. The PassMark suite shows a multithread score of 23833, a single-thread score of 4006, and a physics score of 702. Integer math scores 88117, floating point math scores 66402, and extended instructions score 21592. Data compression scores 346757, data encryption scores 17938, random string sorting scores 34308, and find prime numbers scores 43.

The Core 7 160HL lacks any recorded benchmark data, so its actual performance cannot be verified from the database. The specification sheet suggests advantages in core count, thread count, boost clock, and L3 cache size, but without measured results, those advantages remain theoretical. The Core 5 211E's recorded data confirms its performance standing across multiple rendering and compute tests.

Given the absence of head-to-head data, the Core 5 211E's measured results and percentile ranking provide the only quantitative basis for comparison. The Core 7 160HL's higher core count and boost clock could plausibly close the gap in heavily multithreaded workloads, but the database holds no evidence to confirm this.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The Core 5 211E uses 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 7 160HL uses 14 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for the Core 5 211E and 2.50 GHz for the Core 7 160HL. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 211E and 5.20 GHz for the Core 7 160HL. TDP values are 65 W for the Core 5 211E and 45 W for the Core 7 160HL.

The codenames differ: Bartlett Lake for the Core 5 211E and Raptor Lake-PS for the Core 7 160HL. The architecture field is null for the Core 5 211E but listed as Raptor Lake for the Core 7 160HL. Die size is 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E, while the Core 7 160HL has no recorded die size. L3 cache is 20 MB shared for the Core 5 211E and 24 MB shared for the Core 7 160HL.

Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E, with no recorded value for the Core 7 160HL. ECC memory support is true for the Core 5 211E and false for the Core 7 160HL. PCIe specifications show Gen 5 with 16 Lanes for the Core 5 211E and Gen 4 with 8 Lanes for the Core 7 160HL. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730 for the Core 5 211E and Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for the Core 7 160HL.

Release dates are 2025-01-12 for the Core 5 211E and 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 160HL. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core 7 160HL has no launch MSRP recorded. Part numbers also differ: SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and unknown for the Core 7 160HL. Both processors share the same socket, Intel Socket 1700, same process node at 10 nm, same foundry at Intel, same L1 cache at 80 KB per core, same L2 cache at 2 MB per core, same memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, same dual-channel memory bus, same desktop market segment, same Active production status, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in measured performance verification. Its benchmark suite is fully populated, and its 86th percentile ranking places it well above the Core 7 160HL's 50th percentile. The average benchmark score of 37829 confirms a strong overall standing, with nearest rivals clustered within 0.2% of its score, indicating tight competition at the top of its performance class.

The Core 5 211E also wins on connectivity and reliability features. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes is a full generation ahead of the Core 7 160HL's PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. The ECC memory support adds a reliability dimension that the Core 7 160HL cannot match. The higher base clock of 2.70 GHz may provide an advantage in latency-sensitive workloads that do not scale with boost frequency.

The Intel Core 7 160HL wins on paper specifications for multithreaded throughput. Its 14 cores and 20 threads exceed the Core 5 211E's 10 cores and 16 threads by 4 cores and 4 threads. The 5.20 GHz boost clock is 0.30 GHz higher than the Core 5 211E's 4.90 GHz, which can benefit lightly threaded tasks that rely on peak single-core speed. The larger 24 MB L3 cache provides more shared cache capacity for data-intensive parallel workloads.

The Core 7 160HL also wins on power efficiency. Its 45 W TDP is 20 W lower than the Core 5 211E's 65 W TDP, which can simplify cooling requirements and reduce system power draw in sustained loads. The Iris Xe Graphics 96EU is a more capable integrated GPU than the UHD Graphics 730, making the Core 7 160HL the better choice for systems that rely on integrated graphics for display or light compute tasks.

The Core 5 211E wins in the database's performance percentile comparison, but the Core 7 160HL's lack of recorded benchmarks leaves its real-world potential unquantified. The Core 5 211E is the validated performer with a strong measured record. The Core 7 160HL presents a compelling specification sheet, particularly for multithreaded and graphics-oriented workloads, but without benchmark data its wins remain unverified. For users prioritizing measured performance, ECC support, and next-generation PCIe, the Core 5 211E is the clear pick. For users prioritizing core count, boost clock, cache size, power draw, and integrated graphics, the Core 7 160HL offers the stronger configuration on paper.