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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between these two Bartlett Lake processors. The Intel Core 5 211E wins 8 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 9 273PTE takes 9. However, the margins tell a more complex story than the raw win count suggests.

In the Cinebench suite, the Core 9 273PTE edges ahead consistently, though by remarkably slim margins. The multicore results show the Core 9 leading by 0.2% in Cinebench R15 (2060 vs 2055), 0.3% in R20 (8586 vs 8563), and 0.3% in R23 (20445 vs 20389). Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Core 9 ahead by 0.3% in both R20 (1212 vs 1208) and R23 (2886 vs 2878). These are essentially statistical ties, indicating that in traditional rendering workloads, the two processors deliver nearly identical performance.

The PassMark suite reveals where the real divergence occurs. The Core 5 211E dominates several specialized workloads with substantial margins. Data compression shows the Core 5 ahead by 34% (346757 vs 258704). Extended instructions favor the Core 5 by 35.4% (21592 vs 15952). Data encryption sees a 25.9% advantage for the Core 5 (17938 vs 14253). Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 by 18.4% (34308 vs 28973). Single-thread performance also favors the Core 5 by 16.7% (4006 vs 3433).

Conversely, the Core 9 273PTE posts enormous wins in specific PassMark tests. Find prime numbers shows the Core 9 ahead by 69.7% (142 vs 43). Physics simulation demonstrates a 63.4% advantage for the Core 9 (1917 vs 702). Multithread performance goes to the Core 9 by 0.9% (24054 vs 23833). Floating-point math favors the Core 5 by 9.4% (66402 vs 60673), while integer math goes to the Core 5 by 6.9% (88117 vs 82411).

The average benchmark scores place these processors in different competitive tiers. The Core 5 211E achieves an average score of 37829, ranking in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, scores 37804, a delta of 0.1%. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 sits 0.2% higher at 37904. The Core 9 273PTE, meanwhile, averages 31143, placing it in the 82nd percentile. Its closest competitor, the Intel Core i7-12650HX, scores 31290, a 0.5% difference, while the Intel Core i7-12700F trails by 0.2% at 31081.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Bartlett Lake codename and the 10 nm process node from Intel. They use the same Intel Socket 1700 and integrate UHD Graphics 730. The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 211E provides 10 cores with 16 threads, while the Core 9 273PTE expands to 12 cores with 24 threads. This 20% core increase and 50% thread increase explains some of the multithread advantages seen in the data.

Cache hierarchies diverge notably. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, jumps from 20 MB shared on the Core 5 to 36 MB shared on the Core 9, an 80% increase. This larger cache likely contributes to the physics simulation and prime number findings where the Core 9 excels.

Clock speeds reveal an interesting trade-off. The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Core 9 273PTE runs a much lower 1.40 GHz base but boosts higher to 5.50 GHz. The Core 5's higher base clock helps explain its single-thread PassMark advantage of 16.7% (4006 vs 3433). The Core 9's superior boost clock, combined with more cores and threads, supports its physics and prime number results.

Power envelopes differ significantly. The Core 5 211E carries a 65 W TDP, while the Core 9 273PTE operates at 45 W despite having more cores and a higher boost clock. This suggests different binning and power management strategies between the two parts.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The Core 5 211E delivers 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 9 273PTE reaches 89.6 GB/s, a 16.7% increase. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configurations, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity remains identical at Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The die size is recorded for the Core 5 at 257 mm², while the Core 9's die size is not available in the database. Both processors use the Intel foundry and share the same production status of Active.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two processors with overlapping capabilities but distinct behavioral profiles. The Core 5 211E demonstrates superior performance in compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, string sorting, and single-threaded tasks. The Core 9 273PTE delivers dominance in prime number calculations, physics simulation, and marginally better Cinebench results across all tested versions.

The average benchmark score gap is substantial at 21.5% in favor of the Core 5 (37829 vs 31143), yet the percentile ranking difference is only 4 points (86th vs 82nd). This suggests the Core 5 sits in a more competitive performance tier relative to the broader CPU landscape.

The Core 9 273PTE's release date is recorded as March 2026, while the Core 5 211E appeared in January 2025. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and for the Core 9 273PTE it is $549. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not available |

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

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

| Release Date | January 2025 | March 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $549 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SA4QJ |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PTE has 12 cores and 24 threads, compared to 10 cores and 16 threads on the Intel Core 5 211E.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The Core 9 273PTE scores 20445 versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a difference of 0.3% in favor of the Core 9.

Q: Which CPU wins in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Core 5 211E leads by 16.7% with a score of 4006 compared to 3433 for the Core 9 273PTE.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between them?

A: The find prime numbers test shows the Core 9 273PTE ahead by 69.7% (142 vs 43), the largest delta in either direction.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core 9 273PTE support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E averages 37829, while the Core 9 273PTE averages 31143.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E claims victory in data compression with a 34% lead, data encryption with 25.9%, and extended instructions with 35.4%. Random string sorting goes to the Core 5 by 18.4%. Floating-point math favors the Core 5 by 9.4%, and integer math by 6.9%. Single-thread PassMark performance also belongs to the Core 5 with a 16.7% margin. These results point toward workloads involving data processing, cryptographic operations, and general single-threaded responsiveness.

The Intel Core 9 273PTE wins all six Cinebench tests, though by margins under 0.5%. Its decisive victories come in physics simulation with a 63.4% advantage and prime number calculation with 69.7%. Multithread performance goes to the Core 9 by 0.9%. These outcomes suggest strengths in simulation, computational mathematics, and heavily threaded applications that can leverage its 12 cores and 24 threads.

The data implies a clear division of labor. The Core 5 211E suits tasks where per-thread efficiency and specialized instruction execution matter most. The Core 9 273PTE excels when raw thread count and cache capacity translate into physics or mathematical throughput. The lower TDP of the Core 9, combined with its higher boost clock, presents an interesting efficiency profile that the benchmark results only partially explain. The Cinebench near-ties across every version indicate that in mainstream rendering workloads, either processor delivers equivalent results, making the specialized PassMark differences the deciding factor for workload selection.