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

The Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core i5-14400F are both 10-core, 16-thread desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but the benchmark data reveals they have distinctly different performance profiles. The Core i5-14400F dominates in traditional rendering workloads, while the Core 5 211E counters with notable advantages in several specialized compute tasks. The head-to-head results show 9 wins for the Core i5-14400F and 8 wins for the Core 5 211E, indicating a competitive split that depends heavily on the specific application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the Intel Core i5-14400F appear in the Cinebench suite, where it holds a consistent advantage across all six recorded tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core i5-14400F scores 21645 against 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a 5.8% lead. The same 5.8% gap appears in Cinebench R23 singlecore, with scores of 3055 and 2878 respectively. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (9090 versus 8563) and singlecore (1283 versus 1208), as well as Cinebench R15 multicore (2181 versus 2055) and singlecore (307 versus 289). This uniformity suggests the Core i5-14400F has a fundamental architectural edge in Cinebench's workload.

The PassMark suite tells a different story. The Core 5 211E wins 8 of the 11 recorded PassMark tests, often by substantial margins. Its largest win comes in data compression, where it scores 346757 against 315521, a 9.9% advantage. Floating point math shows an 8.3% lead (66402 versus 61319), and integer math delivers an 8.1% edge (88117 versus 81524). The Core 5 211E also wins in extended instructions (21592 versus 19937, an 8.3% gap), data encryption (17938 versus 16949, a 5.8% gap), random string sorting (34308 versus 32680, a 5% gap), and single-thread performance (4006 versus 3701, an 8.2% gap).

The PassMark physics test produces the largest single delta in the entire comparison. The Core i5-14400F scores 1523, while the Core 5 211E manages only 702, a 53.9% deficit for the 211E. Similarly, the find prime numbers test shows the Core i5-14400F at 86 against 43 for the Core 5 211E, a 50% gap. The PassMark multithread score also favors the Core i5-14400F, 25470 versus 23833, a 6.4% margin.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates the Core i5-14400F is the stronger choice for rendering and physics-based workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21645 places it firmly ahead of the Core 5 211E in CPU rendering tasks. The physics test result, where it more than doubles the Core 5 211E's score, points to a significant advantage in simulation and physics calculations. The find prime numbers result, a workload often associated with mathematical and cryptographic operations, also goes decisively to the Core i5-14400F.

The Core 5 211E carves out its wins in data processing and general compute tasks. Its data compression score of 346757 leads by 9.9%, making it the better option for archive management and compression workloads. The floating point math advantage of 8.3% and integer math advantage of 8.1% suggest stronger raw arithmetic throughput. The single-thread PassMark score of 4006 versus 3701 indicates the Core 5 211E actually has the faster single-core performance in this particular test, despite losing the Cinebench singlecore comparison. This contradiction highlights the importance of matching CPU choice to the specific software environment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14400F boosts to 4.70 GHz. The Core 5 211E also has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829 and ranks in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14400F has an average benchmark score of 32279 and ranks in the 83rd percentile.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by its "N/A" listing, meaning a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: The Core 5 211E's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, which scores 37804 and trails by 0.1%, followed by the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 37762 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 37904 (0.2% ahead). The Core i5-14400F's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U at 32233 (0.1% behind), followed by the Intel Core i9-11900 at 32226 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS at 32354 (0.2% ahead).

Q: Which processor has a larger L2 cache per core?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 2 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel Core i5-14400F has 1.25 MB per core. Both have 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications. Both have 10 cores, 16 threads, a 65 W TDP, and use the Intel Socket 1700. Both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node and support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration. Both provide PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes and support ECC memory.

The clock speeds differ. The Core 5 211E runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost, while the Core i5-14400F runs at 2.50 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The die size also differs: the Core 5 211E measures 257 mm², while the Core i5-14400F is smaller at 215 mm². The memory bandwidth figures show a difference, with the Core 5 211E listed at 76.8 GB/s and no figure recorded for the Core i5-14400F. The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, and the Core i5-14400F has a launch MSRP of $196. The Core 5 211E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core i5-14400F was released on 2024-01-07.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename and is part of the Core 5 generation. The Core i5-14400F uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename and belongs to the Core 14th Gen series. The process node is the same 10 nm Intel process for both.

The cache hierarchy shows a notable divergence in L2 cache allocation. The Core 5 211E provides 2 MB of L2 cache per core, which is 60% more than the Core i5-14400F's 1.25 MB per core. Both processors share 20 MB of L3 cache and use the same 80 KB per core L1 cache configuration.

The integrated graphics situation is a major architectural distinction. The Core 5 211E carries UHD Graphics 730, making it a self-contained solution for basic display tasks. The Core i5-14400F lacks integrated graphics entirely, which means it requires a discrete graphics card for any display output. This difference does not affect raw compute benchmarks but does influence system design requirements.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear use-case split. The Intel Core i5-14400F is the stronger processor for Cinebench rendering workloads, physics simulations, and prime number calculations. Its 5.8% lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with a 53.9% advantage in the PassMark physics test, makes it the preferred choice for applications that rely on those specific execution paths. Its PassMark multithread score of 25470 also exceeds the Core 5 211E's 23833, indicating better overall threaded throughput in that benchmark.

The Intel Core 5 211E presents a compelling counter-profile for data-intensive tasks. Its 9.9% lead in data compression, 8.3% lead in floating point math, and 8.1% lead in integer math demonstrate superior arithmetic throughput in PassMark's compute workloads. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4006 outpaces the Core i5-14400F's 3701, and its higher clock speeds of 2.70 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost support its performance in these tests.

The average benchmark scores favor the Core 5 211E, which posts 37829 against 32279 for the Core i5-14400F, a gap that places it in the 86th percentile versus the 83rd percentile. However, the Core i5-14400F's consistent Cinebench dominance and physics performance make it the better match for rendering and simulation environments. The Core 5 211E's integrated UHD Graphics 730, larger L2 cache per core, and higher memory bandwidth figure add practical advantages for systems that need flexible display options and data processing capability. The choice between these two processors depends entirely on whether the primary workload favors Cinebench-style rendering or PassMark-style data computation.