Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core i9-13900HK Comparison

The Intel Core i9-13900HK and the Intel Core 5 211E represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, and their benchmark results show a fascinating split between legacy multi-threaded workloads and newer, lighter-threaded tasks. The data shows the mobile i9-13900HK wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the desktop Core 5 211E takes 7, but the magnitude of those victories tells the real story. The i9-13900HK dominates in heavily parallel workloads, while the Core 5 211E delivers a significant single-thread advantage that reshapes the overall picture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R23, where the Core 5 211E outperforms the i9-13900HK by 21.4% in multicore (20389 vs 16025) and by a staggering 35.9% in singlecore (2878 vs 1843.5). This is counterintuitive given the i9’s higher core count, but it suggests the Bartlett Lake architecture’s efficiency per core is substantially higher. The single-thread delta is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison, indicating a generational leap in IPC that the older Raptor Lake design cannot match.

However, the i9-13900HK turns the tables in older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i9 wins by 16.7% (2398 vs 2055), and in R20 multicore, it leads by 11.5% (9548 vs 8563). The i9 also wins R20 singlecore by 11.5% (1347 vs 1208), but loses R15 singlecore by 9% (263 vs 289). This inconsistency across Cinebench versions points to different scaling behavior—the i9’s advantage in R15 and R20 multicore likely stems from its 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 5’s R23 victory suggests newer workload optimizations favor its architecture.

PassMark results follow a similar pattern but with different winners. The i9-13900HK wins PassMark multithread by 18.3% (28194 vs 23833), floating point math by 2.4% (68020 vs 66402), integer math by 6.8% (94120 vs 88117), and random string sorting by 6.9% (36662 vs 34308). Its most lopsided victories are in find prime numbers (155.8% ahead, 110 vs 43) and physics (170.1% ahead, 1896 vs 702). The physics score is particularly telling—the i9’s result is nearly triple that of the Core 5, indicating a massive advantage in simulated physical calculations.

The Core 5 211E counters in PassMark data compression (5% ahead, 346757 vs 329454), extended instructions (9.5% ahead, 21592 vs 19534), and single-thread (4.9% ahead, 4006 vs 3810). The data encryption test goes to the i9 by 7% (19198 vs 17938). The Core 5’s single-thread win is modest but consistent, appearing in both PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests with identical scores. In aggregate, the Core 5 211E has a higher average benchmark score (37829 vs 37425) and a slightly better percentile ranking (86th vs 85th percentile vs all CPUs), even though the i9 wins more individual tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 10 nm process node and Intel as the foundry, with an identical die size of 257 mm². The fundamental architectural split is in core configuration: the i9-13900HK packs 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Core 5 211E uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Both maintain the same per-core cache hierarchy—80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core—but the shared L3 cache differs: the i9 has 24 MB, while the Core 5 has 20 MB.

The codenames reveal the generational gap. The i9 is built on Raptor Lake-H, while the Core 5 uses Bartlett Lake. This is not just a naming difference—it explains why the Core 5 achieves higher single-thread scores despite fewer cores. The i9 has a higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz versus 4.90 GHz for the Core 5, yet the Core 5 still wins single-thread benchmarks, indicating that architectural efficiency outweighs raw clock speed here. The base clocks are closer: 2.60 GHz for the i9 and 2.70 GHz for the Core 5.

Platform support diverges significantly. The i9-13900HK uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform. The i9 has PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core 5 doubles that to 16 lanes. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 for both, but the Core 5 explicitly lists a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and supports ECC memory, while the i9 does not list ECC support. The integrated graphics also differ: the i9 features Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the Core 5 uses the more modest UHD Graphics 730.

The market segments are opposite—the i9 is mobile, the Core 5 is desktop—and the i9 has an unlocked multiplier while the Core 5 is locked. The i9 carries a launch MSRP of $697, while the Core 5’s launch MSRP is $221. The i9 was released on 2023-01-03, while the Core 5 arrived on 2025-01-12, a two-year gap that explains the architectural improvements.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the i9-13900HK is the superior processor for heavy multi-threaded workloads, while the Core 5 211E is better for single-thread and certain modern benchmark scenarios. The i9’s wins in PassMark physics (170.1% ahead) and find prime numbers (155.8% ahead) are decisive, and its 18.3% lead in PassMark multithread confirms its parallel processing strength. The Core 5’s 35.9% single-core lead in Cinebench R23 and its higher overall average benchmark score (37829 vs 37425) make it the better choice for lightly threaded applications that value per-core performance.

For users running older Cinebench R15/R20 workloads, the i9 is the pick—it wins multicore in both by 16.7% and 11.5% respectively. For Cinebench R23, the Core 5 is unequivocally faster in both single and multi-thread tests. The Core 5 also holds the edge in data compression and extended instructions, which matter for database and encryption workloads. The i9 counters with data encryption and random string sorting wins.

The specification sheet reinforces the use-case split. The i9’s 14 cores and 20 threads are better suited to rendering and scientific simulation, given its physics benchmark dominance. The Core 5’s 10 cores and 16 threads, combined with ECC memory support and a desktop socket, target workstation reliability and embedded applications. The i9’s unlocked multiplier appeals to overclockers on mobile platforms, while the Core 5’s locked multiplier suggests a stable, predictable desktop environment.

Specification Differences

• Cores: i9-13900HK has 14, Core 5 211E has 10
• Threads: i9-13900HK has 20, Core 5 211E has 16
• Base Clock: i9-13900HK at 2.60 GHz, Core 5 211E at 2.70 GHz
• Boost Clock: i9-13900HK at 5.40 GHz, Core 5 211E at 4.90 GHz
• TDP: i9-13900HK at 45W, Core 5 211E at 65W
• Socket: i9-13900HK on Intel BGA 1744, Core 5 211E on Intel Socket 1700
• Codename: i9-13900HK on Raptor Lake-H, Core 5 211E on Bartlett Lake
• L3 Cache: i9-13900HK has 24 MB shared, Core 5 211E has 20 MB shared
• Memory Bandwidth: Core 5 211E lists 76.8 GB/s, i9-13900HK does not
• ECC Memory: Core 5 211E supports it, i9-13900HK does not
• PCIe: i9-13900HK has Gen 5 8 Lanes, Core 5 211E has Gen 5 16 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: i9-13900HK has Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, Core 5 211E has UHD Graphics 730
• Market Segment: i9-13900HK is Mobile, Core 5 211E is Desktop
• Multiplier: i9-13900HK is unlocked, Core 5 211E is locked
• Release Date: i9-13900HK on 2023-01-03, Core 5 211E on 2025-01-12

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900HK has 14 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Core 5 211E in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 5 211E leads by 35.9% in Cinebench R23 singlecore (2878 vs 1843.5) and by 4.9% in PassMark single-thread (4006 vs 3810).

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark physics and by how much?

A: The i9-13900HK wins PassMark physics by 170.1%, scoring 1896 versus 702 for the Core 5 211E.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses, but the Core 5 211E additionally supports ECC memory and lists a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The i9-13900HK has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, compared to 37425 for the i9-13900HK, and it also ranks in the 86th percentile versus the 85th for the i9.