AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core 5 211TE Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 and Intel Core 5 211TE occupy very different positions in the database. The Ryzen 7 250 is a mobile processor with an 86th percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Core 5 211TE is a desktop chip sitting at the 69th percentile. The data shows a decisive overall performance advantage for the AMD part: it wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 38,221 compared to 15,370 for the Intel chip. That is a 149% gap in aggregate scoring.

The Ryzen 7 250 is the clear choice for anyone whose workload spans multi-threaded rendering, encryption, compression, or floating-point math. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,676 beats the Intel part's 12,201 by 20.3%, and its PassMark multi-thread score of 25,089 nearly doubles the Intel's 11,685. The Intel Core 5 211TE does win two specific tests: Cinebench R23 single-core by a razor-thin 0.4% margin (1,722 vs. 1,715) and PassMark physics by 10.3% (1,278 vs. 1,147). Those are narrow wins in isolated workloads, not enough to offset the AMD processor's dominance elsewhere.

For the Intel part, the appeal lies in its platform features rather than raw speed. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC memory support, and uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. It is also a desktop part with a 45 W TDP, which suits systems where the 28 W TDP of the AMD mobile chip would be a mismatch. The Core 5 211TE carries a launch MSRP of $221. The Ryzen 7 250 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The verdict from the data: the Ryzen 7 250 delivers far higher throughput for compute-heavy tasks, while the Intel part makes sense only where ECC, DDR4 compatibility, or desktop socket requirements are mandatory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 2,302 against the Intel's 1,229 (an 87.3% advantage), and in Cinebench R23 multi-core it scores 14,676 versus 12,201 (a 20.3% advantage). PassMark multithread shows 25,089 for AMD versus 11,685 for Intel, a 114.7% gap.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 211TE win any benchmark?

A: Yes, two of them. It wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1,722 versus 1,715, a 0.4% margin, and PassMark physics with 1,278 versus 1,147, a 10.3% margin. Both are small wins in tests where the AMD part is only slightly behind.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. Despite having two more cores, the Intel part trails in almost every benchmark.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not have ECC support in its recorded specifications.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses Radeon 780M graphics. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and manufacturing approaches. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a 215 mm² die. Intel's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. That gives Intel a larger pool of cache overall, but the benchmark data shows AMD translating its smaller cache into much higher performance.

The memory controllers reflect different market targets. AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Intel also includes ECC memory capability, which AMD lacks. On the PCIe front, AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part uses Socket 1700 and targets desktop systems; the AMD part uses Socket FP8 and targets mobile systems.

Process node differences are stark: 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The AMD processor also has a much higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz against Intel's 4.80 GHz, and a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 1.70 GHz. The TDP values reflect their segments: 28 W for the mobile AMD part and 45 W for the desktop Intel part. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are marked as active production parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | Intel Core 5 211TE |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 1.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 215 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 20 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 16 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 780M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2025-01-12 |

The release dates are seven days apart, with AMD launching first. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $221; the AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a clear pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 7 250 scores 2,302 against the Intel Core 5 211TE's 1,229, a lead of 87.3%. That is the largest margin in the Cinebench tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows the gap to 20.3% (14,676 vs. 12,201), but the AMD part still wins decisively. In single-core, Cinebench R15 gives AMD a 55.5% win (269 vs. 173), while Cinebench R23 single-core flips to Intel by just 0.4% (1,722 vs. 1,715). The Intel win is statistically negligible, but it is the only Cinebench test where Intel comes out ahead.

The PassMark suite amplifies the AMD advantage. Data compression shows AMD at 300,708 versus Intel's 133,434, a 125.4% margin. Data encryption is even more lopsided: 17,661 versus 7,231, a 144.2% advantage. Extended instructions follow at 21,613 versus 8,615, a 150.9% gap. Floating-point math delivers 53,285 versus 26,150, a 103.8% win. Integer math is the largest margin of all: 91,565 versus 33,991, a 169.4% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 141.7% (35,861 vs. 14,838).

Single-thread PassMark scores show a 161.2% advantage for AMD (3,678 vs. 1,408), which is notable given that the Intel part wins Cinebench R23 single-core by a hair. The PassMark multithread score gives AMD a 114.7% win (25,089 vs. 11,685). The only other Intel win is PassMark physics, where Intel scores 1,278 against AMD's 1,147, a 10.3% margin. The two processors tie nearly in PassMark find prime numbers, with AMD at 73 and Intel at 72, a 1.4% difference.

The aggregate picture is one-sided. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 holds a 149% higher average benchmark score (38,221 vs. 15,370) and sits 17 percentile points higher overall. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, Intel Core i5-13600HX, Intel Core i5-14490F, and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H, all within 0.2% of its average score. The Intel Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals are entirely different: AMD EPYC 7543, AMD EPYC 7702P, AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, and Intel Core i3-1315U, with deltas ranging from -2% to +2.3%. That comparison set places the Intel part in a much lower performance stratum, closer to entry-level and older server chips than to the Ryzen 7 250's neighborhood.