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

The Verdict

The Intel Core 9 273PQE is the dominant part in every recorded benchmark, winning all 17 head-to-head tests. The data shows a decisive performance gap that spans single-core, multi-core, and specialized workloads. The Intel Core 5 211E cannot match the Core 9 273PQE in any measured category, making the latter the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput.

The Intel Core 5 211E remains a viable option for systems where the higher power envelope of the Core 9 273PQE is not acceptable. With a 65 TDP against the Core 9's 125 TDP, the Core 5 211E delivers a capable desktop experience, but the benchmark record indicates that every task type, from data compression to physics simulation, runs substantially faster on the Core 9 273PQE. The Core 5 211E holds an 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Core 9 273PQE sits at the 93rd percentile. Users who require the absolute fastest results in threaded applications should select the Core 9 273PQE; users who prioritize a lower power draw and still need solid performance can choose the Core 5 211E, accepting a roughly 48% deficit in multi-core Cinebench scores.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the Bartlett Lake family and are built on Intel's 10 nm process node. They share the same Intel Socket 1700 platform and the same dual-channel memory bus. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory and both include ECC memory support. PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 5 with 16 lanes available from the CPU.

The core configurations differ. The Core 5 211E provides 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 9 273PQE provides 12 cores and 24 threads. That is a 20% increase in core count and a 50% increase in thread count for the Core 9 273PQE. The L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core, and the L2 cache is also identical at 2 MB per core. The L3 cache, however, scales with the higher-tier part: the Core 5 211E has 20 MB shared, while the Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB shared, a 16 MB difference that benefits heavily threaded workloads.

Clock speeds also separate the two. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The Core 9 273PQE runs 0.70 GHz higher at base and 1.00 GHz higher at boost, which directly explains its lead in single-threaded tests. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core 9 273PQE as well, at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

The integrated graphics differ between the two parts. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 9 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770. The die size for the Core 5 211E is recorded at 257 mm², while no die size is listed for the Core 9 273PQE. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 211E launched with a release date of 2025-01-12, while the Core 9 273PQE launched later, on 2026-03-08. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core 9 273PQE has a launch MSRP of $589.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every multi-threaded benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39190 against the Core 5 211E's 20389, a 48% advantage. The PassMark multithread test shows 46107 versus 23833, a 48.3% advantage.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The Core 9 273PQE leads in all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5532 versus 2878, a 48% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 12.4%, with scores of 4573 and 4006.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 0 wins for the Core 5 211E and 17 wins for the Core 9 273PQE.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5, both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both support ECC memory. The Core 9 273PQE has a higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s compared to 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700 and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. They also share the same 10 nm process node and Bartlett Lake codename.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 9 273PQE includes UHD Graphics 770. The Core 9 273PQE's graphics tier is higher.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core 9 273PQE:

• Cores: 10 vs 12
• Threads: 16 vs 24
• Base Clock: 2.70 GHz vs 3.40 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.90 GHz vs 5.90 GHz
• TDP: 65 vs 125
• L3 Cache: 20 MB shared vs 36 MB shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 730 vs UHD Graphics 770
• Die Size: 257 mm² vs not listed
• Release Date: 2025-01-12 vs 2026-03-08
• Launch MSRP: $221 vs $589
• Part Number: SRQERQ65F vs SA4Q9
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 86 vs 93
• Average Benchmark Score: 37829 vs 66099

Identical specifications include the 10 nm process node, Intel Socket 1700, 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, DDR4/DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, Gen 5 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes, and the locked multiplier. Both are listed as Active in production status and both target the Desktop market segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core 9 273PQE wins every recorded test, but the margin varies significantly by workload type. The largest advantage appears in PassMark physics, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 2754 against the Core 5 211E's 702, a 74.5% lead. This indicates a massive difference in simulated physics calculations, likely driven by the higher core count and thread count.

The second-largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core 9 273PQE scores 198 versus 43, a 78.3% difference. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and clock speed, both of which favor the Core 9 273PQE. The PassMark multithread test shows a 48.3% lead (46107 vs 23833), while the PassMark data compression test shows a 40.8% lead (585752 vs 346757). Data encryption favors the Core 9 273PQE by 39.5%, with scores of 29636 and 17938.

In the Cinebench suite, the pattern is consistent. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3950 versus 2055, a 48% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 557 versus 289, a 48.1% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 16459 versus 8563, a 48% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2323 versus 1208, a 48% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 39190 versus 20389, a 48% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5532 versus 2878, a 48% lead. Across all six Cinebench tests, the delta remains almost exactly 48%, indicating that the Core 9 273PQE's advantage is structural rather than workload-dependent.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 44.3% lead for the Core 9 273PQE (38743 vs 21592). Floating point math favors the Core 9 273PQE by 47.1% (125546 vs 66402). Integer math shows a 46.5% lead (164629 vs 88117). Random string sorting shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 35.5% (53167 vs 34308). The single-thread PassMark tests show the smallest overall gap at 12.4% (4573 vs 4006), which reflects the boost clock advantage of 1.00 GHz on the Core 9 273PQE.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins in every category measured. Its largest margins are in physics simulation (74.5% ahead) and prime number finding (78.3% ahead), both of which benefit from the 24 threads and 5.90 GHz boost clock. Its smallest margin is in single-thread PassMark, where it is 12.4% ahead, still a clear win. The Core 9 273PQE also delivers a 48% advantage across the entire Cinebench suite, covering both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads. For data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded throughput, and random string sorting, the Core 9 273PQE holds leads ranging from 35.5% to 48.3%.

The Intel Core 5 211E has no benchmark wins. Its role is defined by the specifications that the Core 9 273PQE does not match favorably: a 65 TDP against 125 TDP, and a launch MSRP of $221 against $589. The data shows that the Core 5 211E is positioned as a lower-power desktop processor, while the Core 9 273PQE is positioned as a high-performance desktop processor. In any situation where the 125 TDP envelope is acceptable, the Core 9 273PQE provides substantially higher performance across all recorded tests. In situations where power draw is the limiting factor, the Core 5 211E offers a functional alternative, though the benchmark record clearly documents the performance trade-off.