Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core i9-14900F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core i9-14900F wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 5 211E records zero wins. The margin is not uniform, however. The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the i9-14900F scores 209 versus 43 for the Core 5 211E, a delta of -79.4% from the Core 5's perspective. This suggests the i9's higher core count and boost clock translate into a massive advantage for integer-heavy, parallelizable workloads.

Physics simulation shows a similar pattern. The i9-14900F posts 2899 in PassMark physics, while the Core 5 211E manages only 702, a -75.8% difference. This indicates the i9's 24 cores and 32 threads handle complex physics calculations far more efficiently than the Core 5's 10 cores and 16 threads. The gap narrows considerably in single-threaded tests, where the i9-14900F still leads but by a much smaller margin: 4506 versus 4006 in PassMark single-thread, a -11.1% difference.

Cinebench results consistently show the i9-14900F roughly doubling the Core 5 211E's scores. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9 reaches 39551 against 20389, a -48.4% delta. Single-core R23 shows 5583 versus 2878, a -48.5% delta. The pattern holds across R15 and R20, with deltas between -48.4% and -48.6%. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Data compression and encryption benchmarks reinforce the trend. The i9-14900F scores 564207 in PassMark data compression versus 346757 for the Core 5 211E, a -38.5% delta. Encryption shows 34644 versus 17938, a -48.2% delta. Extended instructions, which test SIMD and vector processing, show a -30.5% delta (31084 versus 21592), the smallest multi-core gap outside of single-thread tests.

Integer math reveals the steepest multi-core penalty for the Core 5 211E. The i9-14900F posts 177066 versus 88117, a -50.2% delta. Floating point math shows 119550 versus 66402, a -44.5% delta. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, has the i9 at 63728 versus 34308, a -46.2% delta. The overall PassMark multithread score is 46532 versus 23833, a -48.8% delta.

The average benchmark score places the i9-14900F at 60008, which ranks in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 5 211E averages 37829, ranking in the 86th percentile. The i9's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (60099, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (59641, +0.6% delta). The Core 5 211E sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, -0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, -0.2% delta), indicating it competes with embedded and mobile parts rather than flagship desktop silicon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900F scores 4506, while the Intel Core 5 211E scores 4006. The i9 leads by 11.1%.

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

A: The i9-14900F scores 39551 in multi-core R23, versus 20389 for the Core 5 211E. This represents a -48.4% delta, meaning the i9 nearly doubles the Core 5's output.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records 17 head-to-head tests, and the Intel Core i9-14900F wins all 17. The Core 5 211E has zero wins.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread, where the i9-14900F leads by 11.1% (4506 versus 4006). The largest gap is in passmark find prime numbers, where the i9 leads by 79.4%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Core 5 211E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The i9-14900F has no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730. The Intel Core i9-14900F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the same 10 nm process node and are built by Intel, with an identical die size of 257 mm². They also share the same socket (Intel Socket 1700) and the same L1 cache of 80 KB per core, plus 2 MB L2 per core. The fundamental differences lie in core topology and cache hierarchy.

The Intel Core 5 211E, codenamed Bartlett Lake, uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Its L3 cache is 20 MB shared. The i9-14900F, codenamed Raptor Lake-R and based on Raptor Lake architecture, uses 24 cores and 32 threads, with a larger 36 MB shared L3 cache. That extra 16 MB of L3 likely explains part of the i9's advantage in data compression and random string sorting, where larger caches reduce memory traffic.

The boost clocks differ substantially. The Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the i9-14900F reaches 5.80 GHz. This 0.9 GHz advantage contributes to the i9's single-thread wins, though the 11.1% single-thread gap is smaller than the 48% multi-core gaps, indicating that core count, not clock speed alone, drives the larger differences.

The Core 5 211E belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, released on 2025-01-12, while the i9-14900F is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, released on 2024-01-07. Both are active production parts. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not available on either.

Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and both support ECC memory. The Core 5 211E has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the i9-14900F has no recorded figure. Both use PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), so expansion capabilities are identical.

The i9-14900F lacks integrated graphics entirely, listing N/A. The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, which means it can drive a display without a discrete GPU. This is a meaningful difference for systems that do not require a dedicated graphics card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core i9-14900F |

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

| Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 32 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.80 GHz |

| L3 cache | 20 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | N/A |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | Not recorded |

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

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Core i9 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Part number | SRQERQ65F | SRN3W |

The base clocks differ in the opposite direction of boost clocks. The Core 5 211E has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for the i9-14900F. This indicates the i9 relies more heavily on boost behavior to reach its performance, while the Core 5 maintains a higher sustained baseline frequency. Both have a 65 W TDP, so power envelopes are identical, but the i9's 24 cores must share that budget, explaining its lower base clock.

The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and for the i9-14900F it is $524. The production status for both is Active, and both use the same socket, process node, die size, L1 and L2 cache configurations, memory support, memory bus, ECC support, and PCIe lanes.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core i9-14900F outperforms the Intel Core 5 211E in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 11.1% in single-thread to 79.4% in prime number finding. The i9's 24 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 5.80 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of L3 cache, deliver an average benchmark score of 60008, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E, with 10 cores, 16 threads, a 4.90 GHz boost, and 20 MB of L3, averages 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile.

The i9-14900F also posts near-identical average scores to the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (60099, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX3D (59641, +0.6% delta), indicating it sits at the top of the desktop performance tier. The Core 5 211E, in contrast, aligns with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (37904, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (37762, +0.2% delta), which are embedded and mobile-oriented parts.

The percentile gap is notable: 92nd versus 86th. This means the i9-14900F outperforms a larger fraction of the database's CPU population than the Core 5 211E. For workloads that scale with cores and threads, the i9 is the superior choice. For single-threaded tasks, the i9 still leads, but the margin is smaller, suggesting the Core 5's higher base clock (2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) partially compensates for its lower boost ceiling.

The i9-14900F's lack of integrated graphics means it requires a discrete GPU, while the Core 5 211E can operate standalone with its UHD Graphics 730. This makes the Core 5 viable for basic display output, but the i9 offers no such fallback.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900F wins across every measured category, so the use-case split is not about one processor beating the other in a specific test. Instead, the data indicates where the i9's advantage is largest and where the Core 5 211E comes closest.

The i9-14900F is the clear choice for multi-threaded, parallel workloads. Its 24 cores and 32 threads deliver near-double performance in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with deltas around -48.4%. PassMark multithread shows a -48.8% delta, and integer math shows a -50.2% delta. For rendering, scientific computing, video encoding, and any workload that can use more than 16 threads, the i9 provides roughly twice the throughput of the Core 5 211E.

The i9's advantage is most extreme in prime number finding (-79.4%) and physics simulation (-75.8%). These tests likely stress core count and cache hierarchy heavily, and the i9's 36 MB L3 cache versus 20 MB gives it a substantial edge. Data encryption (-48.2%) and compression (-38.5%) also favor the i9, making it suitable for server-like workloads such as database operations, file compression, and cryptographic tasks.

The Core 5 211E's closest performance comes in single-threaded tests. PassMark single-thread shows only an 11.1% deficit, and extended instructions show a 30.5% gap. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications, such as older games, office productivity, or scripting, the Core 5 211E is not dramatically slower. Its higher base clock of 2.70 GHz helps maintain responsiveness in everyday tasks without relying on boost.

The Core 5 211E also has the advantage of integrated graphics. Systems built around it do not require a separate GPU for display output, which is relevant for basic desktops, embedded systems, or troubleshooting machines. The i9-14900F offers no such capability.

The i9-14900F's release in January 2024 predates the Core 5 211E's January 2025 release by roughly a year. Both are active production parts, so neither is obsolete. The i9's 92nd percentile ranking versus the Core 5's 86th percentile confirms that the i9 belongs to a higher performance class, while the Core 5 sits closer to mid-range or embedded territory.

For users prioritizing maximum throughput in multi-threaded workloads, the i9-14900F is the only option between these two. For users who need integrated graphics, a lower base clock is acceptable, and single-thread performance is the primary concern, the Core 5 211E offers a functional alternative, though it remains slower in every recorded test.