Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core i9-14901E Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14901E and Intel Core 5 211E are both 65 W desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, yet they target distinctly different workload profiles. The data shows the i9-14901E dominates in nearly every benchmark category, winning 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Core 5 211E secures two significant victories in data compression and extended instruction throughput. Despite the Core 5 211E having more physical cores, the i9-14901E's higher clock speeds and larger cache deliver a decisive performance edge across most tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i9-14901E has 8 cores and 16 threads. Both processors offer the same thread count, but the Core 5 211E distributes that threading across two additional physical cores.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E scores 25,753 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 26.3% higher than the Core 5 211E's score of 20,389. This is one of the most consistent deltas across all Cinebench versions, with the i9-14901E maintaining a 26.3% advantage in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E wins two categories. It scores 346,757 in PassMark data compression (16.7% ahead of the i9-14901E's 288,777) and 21,592 in PassMark extended instructions (20.1% ahead of the i9-14901E's 17,249).

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz. The i9-14901E also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz compared to 2.70 GHz on the Core 5 211E.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i9-14901E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors feature 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i9-14901E and the Intel Core 5 211E support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with the Core 5 211E listing a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental manufacturing foundation: both are built on Intel's 10 nm process node with a 257 mm² die size, and both use the Intel Socket 1700 platform. However, the underlying architectures diverge significantly. The i9-14901E is based on the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-R codename, representing the Core 14th Gen family. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, which is a distinct architectural lineage.

The core configurations differ notably. The i9-14901E deploys 8 cores with 16 threads, while the Core 5 211E uses 10 cores with 16 threads. This means the Core 5 211E has two additional physical cores but the same threading capability, suggesting a different core topology where some cores may not support hyper-threading. The i9-14901E compensates for fewer cores with substantially higher clock speeds: a 5.60 GHz boost versus 4.90 GHz on the Core 5 211E, and a 2.80 GHz base versus 2.70 GHz.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The i9-14901E carries 36 MB of shared L3 cache, nearly double the 20 MB found on the Core 5 211E. Both processors share identical L1 and L2 cache configurations at 80 KB per core and 2 MB per core, respectively. The integrated graphics differ as well: the i9-14901E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core 5 211E ships with UHD Graphics 730. Both processors support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, dual-channel memory buses, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a remarkably consistent pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core), the i9-14901E wins by exactly 26.3% in multi-core tests and 26.6% in R15 single-core, while R20 and R23 single-core tests show a 26.3% delta. For instance, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i9-14901E scores 10,816 versus 8,563 for the Core 5 211E. In R15 single-core, the scores are 366 versus 289. This uniformity suggests the clock speed advantage is the dominant factor, as the i9-14901E's 5.60 GHz boost outperforms the Core 5 211E's 4.90 GHz across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark results show a broader spread of outcomes. In PassMark integer math, the i9-14901E scores 112,736 against 88,117 for the Core 5 211E, a 27.9% advantage. Floating point math shows a 22.1% lead (81,089 versus 66,402), and multithread performance is 27.1% higher (30,298 versus 23,833). The single-thread scores are closer: 4,354 versus 4,006, an 8.7% edge for the i9-14901E. Random string sorting favors the i9-14901E by 14.1% (39,138 versus 34,308), and data encryption shows a narrow 3.5% advantage (18,571 versus 17,938).

The most dramatic deltas appear in specialized workloads. PassMark physics shows the i9-14901E scoring 3,041 versus 702 for the Core 5 211E, a staggering 333.2% advantage. Similarly, find prime numbers results in a 339.5% lead (189 versus 43). These extreme gaps suggest the i9-14901E has significantly stronger integer and physics processing capabilities. However, the Core 5 211E fights back in two areas: data compression (346,757 versus 288,777, a 16.7% win) and extended instructions (21,592 versus 17,249, a 20.1% win). These wins indicate the Core 5 211E's additional cores provide an advantage in specific throughput-oriented tasks.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core i9-14901E is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads, winning 15 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. Its advantages range from 3.5% in data encryption to 339.5% in prime number finding, with particularly strong showings in Cinebench rendering (26.3% across the board) and PassMark multithread (27.1%). The i9-14901E also offers double the L3 cache (36 MB versus 20 MB) and a 0.70 GHz higher boost clock.

The Intel Core 5 211E is not without merit. It wins decisively in data compression (16.7%) and extended instructions (20.1%), indicating that its 10-core configuration provides real benefits for compression algorithms and SIMD-heavy code. Its launch MSRP is $221, which may position it differently in the market. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the i9-14901E is the clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, integer math, and physics simulations. Users prioritizing compression throughput or extended instruction workloads might find the Core 5 211E's wins compelling, but the i9-14901E's overall dominance makes it the stronger recommendation for general-purpose computing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14901E | Intel Core 5 211E |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-R | Bartlett Lake |

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

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

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Release Date | 2024-06-30 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $221 |

| Part Number | Q49ESRNJH | SRQERQ65F |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14901E wins across rendering and compute-heavy applications. Its 26.3% lead in all Cinebench multi-core tests makes it the stronger choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with thread count and clock speed. The i9-14901E also dominates in PassMark integer math (27.9% ahead), floating point math (22.1% ahead), and multithread performance (27.1% ahead). The extreme wins in physics (333.2%) and prime number finding (339.5%) suggest particular strength in simulation and number-crunching tasks. For single-threaded performance, the i9-14901E maintains an 8.7% advantage, making it better for lightly threaded applications that require maximum clock speed.

The Intel Core 5 211E wins specifically in data compression and extended instruction throughput. Its 16.7% lead in data compression (346,757 versus 288,777) indicates an advantage for file archiving, database compression, or any workload that processes large data streams. The 20.1% win in extended instructions (21,592 versus 17,249) suggests better execution of SIMD and vectorized code, which can benefit scientific computing or multimedia processing. These two wins, while isolated, point to the Core 5 211E's 10-core design providing measurable benefits in parallel data transformation tasks. For all other measured categories, including encryption, sorting, and all Cinebench rendering tests, the i9-14901E is the clear winner.