Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Intel Socket 1700 desktop processors into distinct roles. The Intel Core 5 211TE wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 160UL takes 3. That raw count, however, hides a very specific division of labor.

The Core 5 211TE dominates in threaded, multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 12201 against the Core 7 160UL's 9386, a 30% advantage. The same margin repeats across Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, each showing exactly a 30% delta. This pattern extends to data compression (22.5% ahead), random string sorting (25.3% ahead), and physics calculations, where the Core 5 211TE leads by a commanding 56%. For rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales across cores, the Core 5 211TE is clearly the stronger part.

The single-core story is more nuanced. In Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23), the Core 5 211TE wins by 30% in every case. But in the PassMark single-thread tests, the Core 7 160UL turns the tables decisively. It scores 3391 versus 1408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 58.5% lead. This is a striking reversal: the Core 7 160UL posts more than double the PassMark single-thread score despite losing every Cinebench single-core test. The PassMark integer math test also favors the Core 7 160UL, which scores 47515 against 33991 for the Core 5 211TE, a 28.5% edge.

The remaining wins for the Core 5 211TE are narrow but consistent. Data encryption shows a 1.2% lead (7231 vs 7146), floating point math a 1.9% lead (26150 vs 25670), and the overall PassMark multithread score a 5.8% lead (11685 vs 11043). The closest race in the entire dataset is data encryption, where the two parts are nearly identical.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, while the Core 7 160UL averages 14232. Both processors sit at the 69th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier in the broader market despite their internal differences.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common foundation but diverge in several key structural areas. Both use Intel's 10 nm process node, are made by Intel, and feature 10 physical cores. The similarity ends there.

The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, while the Core 7 160UL uses Raptor Lake-PS. The Core 5 211TE belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation, and the Core 7 160UL belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) generation. The Core 7 160UL is explicitly listed as having Raptor Lake architecture; the Core 5 211TE does not have an architecture field recorded, only the codename.

Thread counts differ significantly. The Core 5 211TE has 16 threads, while the Core 7 160UL has 12. With the same 10-core count, this means the Core 5 211TE supports more simultaneous threads, which explains its multi-core dominance. The Core 7 160UL has fewer threads but a higher boost clock: 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz for the Core 5 211TE. The base clocks are close, 1.70 GHz for the Core 5 211TE and 1.80 GHz for the Core 7 160UL.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 20 MB on the Core 5 211TE versus 12 MB on the Core 7 160UL. The larger L3 cache on the Core 5 211TE likely contributes to its strong performance in compression and sorting workloads.

The power envelope is a major differentiator. The Core 5 211TE has a 45 W TDP, while the Core 7 160UL has a 15 W TDP. This makes the Core 7 160UL a far more power-efficient part on paper, though the database records no power consumption measurements to verify real-world behavior.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core 7 160UL uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The Iris Xe solution is generally more capable in graphics workloads, but the database contains no GPU benchmarks for either part.

Memory support is identical in type: both support DDR4 and DDR5, both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core 5 211TE has a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Core 7 160UL has no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory support also differs: the Core 5 211TE supports ECC, the Core 7 160UL does not.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core 7 160UL provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This gives the Core 5 211TE a clear advantage for high-bandwidth expansion cards or storage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core 5 211TE comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 1278 against 819 for the Core 7 160UL, a 56% advantage. This is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison. PassMark extended instructions also heavily favor the Core 5 211TE: 8615 versus 5832, a 47.7% lead. Prime number finding shows a 44% edge (72 vs 50).

The Cinebench suite delivers a uniform 30% advantage for the Core 5 211TE across all six tests. The R15 multi-core scores are 1229 vs 946, R15 single-core 173 vs 133, R20 multi-core 5124 vs 3942, R20 single-core 723 vs 556, R23 multi-core 12201 vs 9386, and R23 single-core 1722 vs 1325. Every delta is exactly 30% or 30.1%, indicating a consistent performance gap that scales across both single and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The Core 7 160UL's wins are concentrated in two PassMark tests. The single-thread score of 3391 versus 1408 represents a 58.5% advantage, the largest win in either direction across the entire dataset. The integer math test shows 47515 versus 33991, a 28.5% lead. These two results suggest the Core 7 160UL has a significantly different execution profile for certain integer-heavy and single-threaded tasks, despite losing every Cinebench test.

The narrowest margins appear in encryption and floating point. Data encryption shows only a 1.2% difference (7231 vs 7146), and floating point math shows 1.9% (26150 vs 25670). These are effectively statistical ties, indicating the two parts are functionally equivalent in these specific workloads.

The PassMark multithread score (11685 vs 11043, 5.8% for the Core 5 211TE) and the data compression score (133434 vs 108953, 22.5% for the Core 5 211TE) round out the picture. The Core 5 211TE wins the overall multithreaded throughput test, but by a much smaller margin than the Cinebench multi-core tests would suggest.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on the following recorded specifications:

• Threads: 16 on the Core 5 211TE, 12 on the Core 7 160UL
• Base clock: 1.70 GHz on the Core 5 211TE, 1.80 GHz on the Core 7 160UL
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz on the Core 5 211TE, 5.20 GHz on the Core 7 160UL
• TDP: 45 W on the Core 5 211TE, 15 W on the Core 7 160UL
• Codename: Bartlett Lake on the Core 5 211TE, Raptor Lake-PS on the Core 7 160UL
• Architecture: not recorded for the Core 5 211TE, Raptor Lake for the Core 7 160UL
• Die size: 215 mm² for the Core 5 211TE, not recorded for the Core 7 160UL
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared on the Core 5 211TE, 12 MB shared on the Core 7 160UL
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE, not recorded for the Core 7 160UL
• ECC memory: supported on the Core 5 211TE, not supported on the Core 7 160UL
• PCIe: Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the Core 5 211TE, Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core 7 160UL
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core 5 211TE, Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Core 7 160UL
• Release date: 2025-01-12 for the Core 5 211TE, 2024-04-07 for the Core 7 160UL
• Launch MSRP: $221 for the Core 5 211TE, none recorded for the Core 7 160UL
• Part number: SRQDL for the Core 5 211TE, unknown for the Core 7 160UL

Identical specifications include cores (10), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (1.25 MB per core), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (dual-channel), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier unlocked (false for both).

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE. It wins every Cinebench multi-core test by exactly 30%, scoring 12201 in R23 multi-core versus 9386 for the Core 7 160UL, and also leads in PassMark multithread by 5.8% (11685 vs 11043).

Q: Why does the Core 7 160UL win the PassMark single-thread test despite losing all Cinebench single-core tests?

A: The PassMark single-thread score for the Core 7 160UL is 3391 versus 1408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 58.5% advantage. The Cinebench single-core tests show the opposite result, with the Core 5 211TE leading by 30% in each. The two benchmark suites measure different aspects of single-thread execution, and the Core 7 160UL's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz appears to benefit PassMark's workload profile specifically.

Q: Do both processors have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 10 cores. They differ in thread count: the Core 5 211TE has 16 threads, while the Core 7 160UL has 12 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 5 211TE supports ECC memory. The Core 7 160UL does not list ECC support in the database.

Q: What are the power envelope differences?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a 45 W TDP, while the Core 7 160UL has a 15 W TDP. This makes the Core 7 160UL a significantly lower-power part.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both have 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core. The L3 cache differs: 20 MB shared on the Core 5 211TE versus 12 MB shared on the Core 7 160UL.