Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core 9 273PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core 9 273PE is decisively lopsided, with the Core 9 273PE taking 15 of the 17 recorded tests. The data shows a consistent pattern of dominance across nearly every workload category, though the single-threaded PassMark results reveal one notable exception where the Core 5 211E fights back.

The Cinebench suite tells a remarkably uniform story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 9 273PE scores 3153 against 2055 for the Core 5 211E, a 34.8% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap at 35.1%, with scores of 445 and 289 respectively. Moving to R20, the multicore gap remains essentially identical at 34.8% (13140 vs 8563), and the single-core delta sits at 34.9% (1855 vs 1208). The R23 results continue this pattern: multicore 31288 vs 20389 (34.8% gap) and single-core 4417 vs 2878 (34.8% gap). The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions suggests the performance difference scales uniformly with the architectural advantages of the Core 9 273PE.

The PassMark suite reveals where the gap widens or narrows depending on the workload. The largest discrepancy appears in the physics test, where the Core 9 273PE scores 3120 versus just 702 for the Core 5 211E, a staggering 77.5% difference. Prime number finding shows a similarly dramatic split at 78.8% (203 vs 43). These two tests appear to heavily reward the additional cores and threads of the Core 9 273PE.

Floating-point math favors the Core 9 273PE by 38.5% (107884 vs 66402), while integer math shows a 36.8% gap (139410 vs 88117). Multithreaded performance sits at 36810 vs 23833, a 35.3% difference. More moderate gaps appear in data encryption (22719 vs 17938, a 21% delta), random string sorting (45098 vs 34308, 23.9%), and data compression (405885 vs 346757, 14.6%). Extended instructions show the smallest Core 9 advantage among the PassMark tests at 12.3% (24630 vs 21592).

The single exception to the Core 9 273PE sweep comes from the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core 5 211E scores 4006 against 3650, a 9.8% win. This result is curious given that the Cinebench single-core tests all favored the Core 9 273PE by roughly 35%. The divergence suggests that the PassMark single-thread workload responds differently to the architectural characteristics of each processor, possibly favoring the higher base clock of the Core 5 211E in a way that Cinebench does not.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PE establishes itself as the clear choice for multithreaded and compute-heavy workloads. The data shows its largest advantages in physics simulation (77.5%), prime number calculation (78.8%), and floating-point math (38.5%). These workloads scale strongly with the additional cores, threads, and larger L3 cache. Content creation tasks that rely on Cinebench-style rendering will see roughly a 35% improvement across the board.

The Core 9 273PE also handles memory-intensive operations well, with data compression showing a 14.6% lead and random string sorting a 23.9% lead. Data encryption benefits from a 21% advantage. Extended instruction workloads, which may include SIMD-optimized code, show a 12.3% improvement. For any user running parallel workloads, the Core 9 273PE delivers consistently higher throughput.

The Core 5 211E claims only the PassMark single-thread test, and by a modest 9.8% margin. This indicates that for lightly threaded legacy applications or scenarios where a single core's performance is the bottleneck, the Core 5 211E holds a measurable edge. However, the Cinebench single-core results contradict this finding, showing the Core 9 273PE ahead by 34.8-35.1%. The PassMark single-thread test appears to reward the Core 5 211E's higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.30 GHz, while Cinebench single-core likely benefits from the Core 9 273PE's higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Bartlett Lake codename and are built on Intel's 10 nm process node. They use the same Intel Socket 1700 and are classified as desktop parts with active production status. The integrated graphics are identical, with UHD Graphics 730 on both. Memory support is also the same, with DDR4 and DDR5, dual-channel operation, and ECC capability.

The core configuration differs meaningfully. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 9 273PE offers 12 cores and 24 threads. This represents a 20% increase in core count and a 50% increase in thread count. The additional threads come from Hyper-Threading support on more cores, which explains why the multithreaded benchmarks show larger gaps than the core count alone would suggest.

Clock speeds take different approaches. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 9 273PE runs a lower base clock of 2.30 GHz but reaches a significantly higher boost of 5.70 GHz. The lower base clock likely helps maintain the same 65 W TDP despite the additional cores, while the higher boost clock provides burst performance when fewer cores are active.

Cache allocation differs substantially. Both processors have 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache jumps from 20 MB on the Core 5 211E to 36 MB on the Core 9 273PE, an 80% increase. This larger cache likely contributes to the Core 9 273PE's advantages in data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads.

Memory bandwidth also improves on the Core 9 273PE, with 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s on the Core 5 211E, a 16.7% increase. Both support PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The die size is listed at 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E, while no die size is recorded for the Core 9 273PE.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Core 9 273PE win so many more benchmarks?

A: The recorded data shows the Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads versus 10 cores and 16 threads on the Core 5 211E, along with 36 MB of L3 cache versus 20 MB. These structural advantages produce consistent wins across 15 of 17 tests, with deltas ranging from 12.3% to 78.8%.

Q: Is the Core 5 211E better at anything?

A: The data shows the Core 5 211E wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4006 versus 3650, a 9.8% advantage. It also has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz compared to 2.30 GHz on the Core 9 273PE.

Q: Why does the PassMark single-thread result contradict the Cinebench single-core results?

A: Cinebench single-core tests show the Core 9 273PE ahead by 34.8% to 35.1%, while PassMark single-thread shows the Core 5 211E ahead by 9.8%. The difference likely relates to how each test utilizes the boost clocks, with the Core 9 273PE reaching 5.70 GHz versus 4.90 GHz on the Core 5 211E.

Q: How large is the performance gap in rendering workloads?

A: Across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), the multicore gap is consistently 34.8% in favor of the Core 9 273PE. The single-core gap in these tests is nearly identical at 34.8% to 35.1%.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and expansion features?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, dual-channel operation, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Core 9 273PE has higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of these processors?

A: Both are listed as Active in production, with the Core 5 211E released on 2025-01-12 and the Core 9 273PE released on 2026-03-08.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core 9 273PE |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $549 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SA4QD |

Both processors share the same socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), TDP (65 W), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (2 MB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support (true), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), market segment (Desktop), and unlocked multiplier status (false).

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PE dominates the Core 5 211E in nearly every measurable workload, with consistent 34.8% advantages in Cinebench multicore tests and even larger gaps in physics simulation (77.5%) and prime number calculation (78.8%). Its additional 2 cores, 8 threads, and 16 MB of L3 cache translate directly into substantial performance gains across multithreaded applications.

The Core 5 211E holds only one meaningful advantage: the PassMark single-thread test, where it leads by 9.8%. This makes it a reasonable choice for extremely legacy single-threaded workloads that cannot utilize multiple cores, though the Cinebench single-core results suggest the Core 9 273PE is generally faster even in single-threaded scenarios.

The Core 9 273PE also carries a higher launch MSRP of $549 compared to $221 for the Core 5 211E, and it sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs versus the 86th percentile for the Core 5 211E. Its average benchmark score of 49845 versus 37829 reflects the overall performance advantage.

For users whose workloads are primarily single-threaded and sensitive to base clock speed, the Core 5 211E offers a specific benefit. For all other use cases, the recorded data indicates the Core 9 273PE delivers substantially higher performance across rendering, computation, and data processing tasks.