Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core i5-14400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core i5-14400 split the benchmark wins almost evenly, with the i5-14400 taking 9 wins and the Core 5 211E taking 8. The split is not random; it follows a clear pattern. The Core i5-14400 wins every Cinebench test, which covers both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads. The Core 5 211E wins most PassMark tests, particularly those involving data manipulation, encryption, and math operations.

For users prioritizing rendering workloads, video encoding, or other tasks that scale with Cinebench-style performance, the Core i5-14400 holds a consistent edge. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21315 versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a 4.3% advantage, shows that the i5-14400 delivers more throughput in heavily threaded content creation tasks. The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the i5-14400 scoring 3009 versus 2878, a 4.4% lead.

The Core 5 211E, however, reverses the situation in PassMark workloads. It wins data compression by 10.1%, data encryption by 7.2%, extended instructions by 9%, floating point math by 7.9%, integer math by 7.4%, and random string sorting by 6.1%. The PassMark single-thread score also favors the Core 5 211E, 4006 versus 3741, a 7.1% advantage. These wins suggest the Core 5 211E handles memory-intensive data operations and mathematical workloads more efficiently, even though its Cinebench scores trail.

The Core i5-14400 dominates two specific PassMark tests: find prime numbers (80 versus 43, a 46.2% lead) and physics (1396 versus 702, a 49.7% lead). These are massive margins that point to architectural efficiency in certain algorithmic patterns. The passmark multithread score also goes to the i5-14400, 25080 versus 23833, a 5% lead.

In practical terms, the Core 5 211E suits workloads that involve compression, encryption, sorting, and heavy math. The Core i5-14400 suits rendering, physics simulation, and prime number calculations. Neither chip is a universal winner, and the choice depends entirely on the workload mix.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the same Intel Socket 1700 and are built on Intel's 10 nm process. They share the same 10 cores and 16 threads, so the thread count parity means neither has a raw core count advantage. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core i5-14400 uses Raptor Lake-R. Both are desktop parts with integrated UHD Graphics 730, dual-channel memory support for DDR4 and DDR5, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes.

The key architectural difference lies in cache allocation. The Core 5 211E has 2 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core i5-14400 has 1.25 MB per core. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L2 cache on the Core 5 211E likely explains its PassMark wins in data compression, encryption, and sorting, where larger local caches reduce memory traffic and speed up repeated data access patterns.

Die size also differs. The Core 5 211E measures 257 mm², while the Core i5-14400 measures 215 mm². The larger die on the Core 5 211E, combined with the bigger L2 cache, suggests a different physical layout despite the same process node. The Core i5-14400 achieves its Cinebench wins with a smaller die and smaller L2 cache, which indicates that its Raptor Lake architecture handles rendering workloads more efficiently per unit of cache.

Clock speeds favor the Core 5 211E. It has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core i5-14400 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The higher clocks on the Core 5 211E align with its PassMark single-thread win, yet the i5-14400 still wins Cinebench single-core, so raw clock speed does not tell the whole story.

The memory bandwidth field lists 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E, while the Core i5-14400 has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database. Both support the same memory types, so the practical difference likely comes from the cache configuration rather than memory controller capabilities. The Core 5 211E also has a different part number (SRQERQ65F versus SRN3QSRN46) and a later release date of January 2025 compared to January 2024 for the i5-14400.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. The Core i5-14400 leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 4.3% (2148 versus 2055), in R15 single-core by 4.6% (303 versus 289), in R20 multi-core by 4.3% (8952 versus 8563), in R20 single-core by 4.4% (1263 versus 1208), in R23 multi-core by 4.3% (21315 versus 20389), and in R23 single-core by 4.4% (3009 versus 2878). These margins are stable across all Cinebench versions, indicating a consistent architectural advantage, not a workload-specific anomaly.

The PassMark results tell a different story. The Core 5 211E wins data compression with 346757 versus 314995, a 10.1% margin. Data encryption goes to the Core 5 211E at 17938 versus 16731, a 7.2% lead. Extended instructions score 21592 versus 19816, a 9% win. Floating point math favors the Core 5 211E at 66402 versus 61549, a 7.9% margin. Integer math goes 88117 versus 82017, a 7.4% lead. Random string sorting favors the Core 5 211E at 34308 versus 32346, a 6.1% win. The PassMark single-thread score goes to the Core 5 211E at 4006 versus 3741, a 7.1% margin.

The Core i5-14400 takes two PassMark tests with enormous margins. Find prime numbers scores 80 versus 43, a 46.2% lead. Physics scores 1396 versus 702, a 49.7% lead. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison. The PassMark multithread test also goes to the i5-14400, 25080 versus 23833, a 5% margin.

The overall average benchmark score favors the Core 5 211E. It records an average of 37829, while the Core i5-14400 records 32115. This places the Core 5 211E in the 86th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 82nd percentile for the i5-14400. The nearest rivals for the Core 5 211E include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 at 37804 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904 (0.2% ahead). The i5-14400 sits near the Intel Core i7-12800H at 32121 (0% difference) and the Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.3% ahead).

The benchmark count shows 9 wins for the i5-14400 and 8 wins for the Core 5 211E, but the magnitude of those wins matters. The i5-14400 wins by small margins in Cinebench and by huge margins in prime numbers and physics. The Core 5 211E wins by moderate margins across many PassMark tests. A workload mix that emphasizes rendering will see a modest but consistent advantage for the i5-14400. A workload mix that emphasizes data processing will see a clear advantage for the Core 5 211E.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Core i5-14400 is the better choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its 4.3% to 4.6% lead across all Cinebench versions, plus its 46.2% and 49.7% margins in prime numbers and physics, make it the stronger processor for content creation, simulation, and specific mathematical tasks. The passmark multithread score of 25080 versus 23833 also confirms that the i5-14400 handles general multi-threaded loads better.

The Core 5 211E is the better choice for data-heavy workloads. Its 10.1% win in data compression, 7.2% in encryption, 9% in extended instructions, 7.9% in floating point math, 7.4% in integer math, and 6.1% in random string sorting make it the superior processor for database operations, file compression, cryptographic tasks, and scientific computing that relies on math throughput. The PassMark single-thread win of 7.1% also gives it an edge in lightly threaded data tasks.

The higher percentile ranking of the Core 5 211E, 86th versus 82nd, reflects its higher average benchmark score of 37829 versus 32115. However, that average is pulled up by the PassMark suite, which dominates the benchmark count. Users should not rely on the average alone; the specific workload pattern matters more.

For a general-purpose desktop where rendering and physics matter, the Core i5-14400 is the safer pick. For a workstation focused on data processing, encryption, compression, and math, the Core 5 211E delivers measurable advantages. Both chips share the same socket, same thread count, same TDP, and same integrated graphics, so the decision comes down to workload priorities rather than platform compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400 wins 9 benchmarks, while the Intel Core 5 211E wins 8. The split is close, but the i5-14400 takes the majority.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multi-core difference?

A: The Core i5-14400 scores 21315, while the Core 5 211E scores 20389. The i5-14400 leads by 4.3%.

Q: Which processor handles data compression better?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 346757 in PassMark data compression, versus 314995 for the Core i5-14400. That is a 10.1% advantage for the Core 5 211E.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap. The Core i5-14400 scores 1396, while the Core 5 211E scores 702, a 49.7% lead for the i5-14400.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core i5-14400 support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core i5-14400 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core 5 211E runs faster in both metrics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core i5-14400 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 215 mm² |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Raptor Lake-R |

| Architecture | Not listed | Raptor Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-01-07 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SRN3QSRN46 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not listed |

| Average Benchmark Score | 37829 | 32115 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 86 | 82 |

The two processors share the same core count (10), thread count (16), TDP (65 W), socket (Intel Socket 1700), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L3 cache (20 MB shared), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), memory support (DDR4 and DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), PCIe configuration (Gen 5, 16 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), launch MSRP ($221), ECC support, and multiplier lock status (both locked). The differences above are the only fields where the two diverge in the recorded data.