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

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits decisively in favor of the Intel Core 5 211E. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Core 5 211E claims 15 wins, while the Intel Core 7 160UL takes only 2. The Core 5 211E dominates every Cinebench iteration, both single-core and multi-core, and wins the vast majority of Passmark workloads. Its victories span rendering, compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded throughput, random string sorting, and single-thread performance.

The Core 7 160UL's two wins are narrow but specific. It edges ahead in Passmark's find prime numbers test, scoring 50 against 43, a 14% advantage. It also wins Passmark physics, scoring 819 against 702, a 14.3% margin. These results indicate the Core 7 160UL has a particular strength in prime-number calculation and physics simulation workloads, likely tied to its distinct core configuration and clock behavior. However, these are isolated victories within a broader pattern of substantial losses.

The use-case split is clear. For any workload that stresses sustained multi-threaded throughput, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or batch data processing, the Core 5 211E is the stronger part by a wide margin. For tasks that involve heavy prime-number sieving or physics-based calculations, the Core 7 160UL shows a measurable edge, though the absolute performance difference is small in those specific tests. The Core 5 211E also leads in single-threaded Cinebench R23 by 117.2%, meaning even lightly threaded applications favor the Bartlett Lake part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a socket, both using Intel Socket 1700, and both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node. Both have 10 cores, but the thread counts diverge: the Core 5 211E supports 16 threads, while the Core 7 160UL supports 12. This likely reflects different core type arrangements, with the Core 5 211E using more hyper-threaded performance cores. The Core 7 160UL runs a Raptor Lake-PS architecture with a Raptor Lake codename, while the Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 7 160UL has a much lower base clock of 1.80 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Core 7 160UL's thermal design power is 15 watts, whereas the Core 5 211E is rated at 65 watts. This power envelope difference explains the Core 7 160UL's lower base frequency and suggests it is designed for thermally constrained systems, despite its higher boost ceiling.

Cache hierarchies are markedly different. The Core 5 211E provides 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core 7 160UL offers 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 12 MB of shared L3. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The larger cache pools on the Core 5 211E contribute to its substantial lead in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core 5 211E also supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160UL does not. The Core 5 211E uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 7 160UL uses PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 lanes. Memory bandwidth is listed only for the Core 5 211E at 76.8 GB/s, with the Core 7 160UL's figure absent from the data.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. The Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm²; the Core 7 160UL's die size is not recorded. The Core 5 211E launched with a release date in January 2025, while the Core 7 160UL came earlier in April 2024. The Core 5 211E carries a launch MSRP of $221; the Core 7 160UL has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly lopsided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core 5 211E scores 2055 against 946 for the Core 7 160UL, a 117.2% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 289 versus 133, also 117.3% ahead. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 8563 versus 3942, a 117.2% lead. Single-core R20 delivers 1208 versus 556, again 117.3%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 20389 versus 9386, a 117.2% margin, and single-core R23 gives 2878 versus 1325, 117.2% ahead. These consistent percentages across all Cinebench versions indicate the Core 5 211E has roughly double the performance in this rendering workload, both for single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks.

Passmark results show even larger gaps in some tests. Data compression favors the Core 5 211E by 218.3%, with scores of 346757 versus 108953. Extended instructions show the largest percentage delta at 270.2%, with 21592 versus 5832. Random string sorting is 189.7% ahead, scoring 34308 versus 11843. Floating-point math runs 158.7% higher at 66402 versus 25670. Data encryption is 151% ahead, at 17938 versus 7146. Multithreaded Passmark shows 23833 versus 11043, a 115.8% lead. Integer math is 85.5% higher, at 88117 versus 47515. Single-thread Passmark is closer: 4006 versus 3391, an 18.1% margin.

The two Core 7 160UL wins are small. Find prime numbers shows 50 versus 43, a 14% advantage for the Core 7 160UL. Physics shows 819 versus 702, a 14.3% edge. These are the only tests where the Core 7 160UL leads, and both are Passmark sub-tests rather than mainstream application benchmarks. The overall benchmark average confirms the hierarchy: the Core 5 211E averages 37829, while the Core 7 160UL averages 14232. The Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core 7 160UL sits at the 69th percentile.

The nearest rivals for the Core 5 211E are all AMD Ryzen AI parts and an Intel Core i9. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 averages 37804, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 averages 37762, a 0.2% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 averages 37904, a -0.2% delta. The Intel Core i9-14901E averages 37911, a -0.2% delta. These are all within a fraction of a percent of the Core 5 211E, meaning it trades blows with high-end mobile and embedded parts. The Core 7 160UL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, averaging 14277 with a -0.3% delta, the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14185 with a 0.3% delta, the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14163 with a 0.5% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at 14320 with a -0.6% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 threads, despite both having 10 cores.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 7 160UL has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the Core 5 211E?

A: The Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 7 160UL has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Core 7 160UL does not.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E has a thermal design power of 65 watts, while the Core 7 160UL has a thermal design power of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher Passmark single-thread score?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 4006 in Passmark single-thread, compared to 3391 for the Core 7 160UL, an 18.1% advantage.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to each part. The Intel Core 5 211E is the clear choice for any desktop workload where raw throughput matters. Its 117.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 218.3% lead in data compression, and 270.2% lead in extended instructions make it the dominant processor for rendering, compression, encryption, and general compute. The 65-watt thermal envelope and 16-thread configuration support sustained performance in these tasks. Its 86th percentile ranking, alongside nearest rivals within 0.2% of its average score, places it in the upper tier of desktop CPUs. ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes further position it for workstation-style use.

The Intel Core 7 160UL serves a different purpose. Its 15-watt thermal design power and 1.80 GHz base clock indicate a low-power design intended for thermally constrained systems. Its higher 5.20 GHz boost clock provides bursty performance when needed, and its two benchmark wins in find prime numbers and physics show it has specific strengths. However, its 69th percentile ranking and average score of 14232, which sits near the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C and Intel Core i5-10400F, place it in a much lower performance tier. The lack of ECC memory, PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 lanes, and smaller 12 MB L3 cache further limit its appeal for demanding workloads.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, data processing, or any compute-heavy application, the Core 5 211E delivers more than double the performance in most tests. For users constrained by power budgets or needing a processor with a higher boost clock for short bursts, the Core 7 160UL offers a viable low-power alternative, but the recorded benchmarks show it cannot match the Core 5 211E in overall capability. The Core 5 211E wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, and its only losses are by margins of 14% or less, while its wins often exceed 100%. The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Core 5 211E is the superior processor for almost all workloads, and the Core 7 160UL is a niche low-power part with narrowly specialized advantages.