Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core 9 273PE Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance gap between the Intel Core 5 211TE and the Intel Core 9 273PE?

A: The Core 9 273PE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is 49845, compared to 15370 for the Core 5 211TE, a difference of roughly 324%. The Core 9 also sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 5 sits at the 69th percentile.

Q: Which benchmark shows the smallest performance difference between the two?

A: The smallest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core 9 273PE scores 445 versus 173 for the Core 5 211TE, a delta of -61.1%. The passmark physics test also shows a relatively narrow gap at -59%, with scores of 3120 and 1278 respectively.

Q: Which benchmark shows the largest performance difference?

A: The passmark floating point math test shows the widest gap. The Core 9 273PE scores 107884, while the Core 5 211TE scores 26150, a delta of -75.8%. Integer math is nearly as large, with a -75.6% delta (139410 versus 33991).

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 9 273PE leads significantly in single-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4417 versus 1722 for the Core 5 211TE, a -61% delta. Passmark single-thread shows 3650 versus 1408, a -61.4% delta.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types and ECC?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory, both use a dual-channel memory bus, and both have ECC memory support enabled. The Core 9 273PE has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core 5 211TE is rated at 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core 5 211TE wins?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core 5 211TE across all 17 head-to-head tests. The Core 9 273PE wins every single comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the Bartlett Lake codename family and are built on Intel's 10 nm process node. They share the same Intel Socket 1700 and use identical integrated graphics, the UHD Graphics 730. The core configurations differ substantially. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. That difference of two physical cores and eight logical threads explains a portion of the multi-threaded performance gap.

The cache hierarchy shows significant divergence. Both processors use an 80 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the Core 5 211TE has 1.25 MB per core, while the Core 9 273PE has 2 MB per core. The L3 cache also differs, with the Core 5 211TE offering 20 MB shared, and the Core 9 273PE offering 36 MB shared. This larger cache pool likely contributes to the Core 9's advantage in data-heavy workloads.

Clock speeds also differ. The Core 5 211TE has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 9 273PE starts higher at 2.30 GHz base and reaches 5.70 GHz boost. The higher base clock helps sustained workloads, while the higher boost clock benefits bursty single-threaded tasks. The thermal design power reflects this: the Core 5 211TE is rated at 45 W, while the Core 9 273PE is rated at 65 W.

PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only) for both. Memory bandwidth is not identical, however. The Core 9 273PE delivers 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211TE. That 12.8 GB/s difference may matter for memory-bound applications. The die size for the Core 5 211TE is recorded as 215 mm², while the Core 9 273PE has no die size listed in the database.

The Core 5 211TE was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core 9 273PE appeared later on 2026-03-08. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers differ: SRQDL for the Core 5, SA4QD for the Core 9.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a complete sweep. The Core 9 273PE wins all 17 recorded tests, with deltas ranging from -59% to -75.8%. The smallest margins appear in multi-core Cinebench tests, where the Core 9's advantage is consistently around -61%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core 9 scores 3153 against 1229 for the Core 5. R20 multicore shows 13140 versus 5124, and R23 multicore shows 31288 versus 12201. All three multi-core tests land at exactly -61% delta.

Single-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern. R15 single-core: 445 versus 173, -61.1% delta. R20 single-core: 1855 versus 723, -61% delta. R23 single-core: 4417 versus 1722, -61% delta. The consistency across these Cinebench versions suggests the architectural advantage scales proportionally.

Passmark tests reveal where the Core 9 stretches its lead. Floating point math shows the largest gap at -75.8%, with scores of 107884 versus 26150. Integer math follows at -75.6%, with 139410 versus 33991. These math-heavy workloads benefit from the Core 9's additional cores, higher clocks, and larger L2 cache.

Data compression shows a -67.1% delta, with 405885 versus 133434. Data encryption shows -68.2%, with 22719 versus 7231. Extended instructions show -65%, with 24630 versus 8615. Prime number finding shows -64.5%, with 203 versus 72. Multithreaded performance shows -68.3%, with 36810 versus 11685.

Physics simulation shows the smallest overall gap at -59%, with 3120 versus 1278. Random string sorting shows -67.1%, with 45098 versus 14838. Both passmark single-thread tests (listed as single_thread and singlethread) show identical scores of 3650 versus 1408, a -61.4% delta.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the gap. The Core 9 273PE averages 49845, placing it at the 90th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (delta 0.9%). The Core 5 211TE averages 15370, placing it at the 69th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD EPYC 7543 (delta -0.7%) and the AMD EPYC 7702P (delta 1.6%). The Core 9's average is more than three times that of the Core 5.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Core 9 273PE |

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.70 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | N/A |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-03-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $549 |

| Part Number | SRQDL | SA4QD |

Identical specifications include socket (Intel Socket 1700), process node (10 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (80 KB per core), memory support (DDR4, DDR5), memory bus (Dual-channel), ECC support (true), PCIe (Gen 5, 16 Lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), market segment (Desktop), production status (Active), and multiplier lock (false).

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core 9 273PE outperforms the Intel Core 5 211TE in every single benchmark recorded. The Core 9's average benchmark score of 49845 versus 15370 for the Core 5 represents a 3.24x difference. The Core 9's percentile ranking of 90 versus 69 for the Core 5 confirms this is not a marginal gap but a fundamental tier difference.

The Core 9 273PE's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (delta 0.9%), placing it in the upper echelon of desktop processors. The Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 (delta -0.7%) and the Intel Core i3-1315U (delta 2.3%), positioning it in a much lower performance class.

For workloads that depend on multi-core throughput, the Core 9's 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 36 MB of L3 cache and higher boost clocks, deliver consistently around 61% better Cinebench results. For single-threaded tasks, the Core 9's 5.70 GHz boost clock versus the Core 5's 4.80 GHz provides a similar advantage. The Core 9 also has a higher base clock of 2.30 GHz versus 1.70 GHz, which helps sustained performance under load.

The Core 5 211TE, however, draws significantly less power at 45 W versus 65 W. It also has a lower launch MSRP of $221 versus $549 for the Core 9. The Core 5's smaller L3 cache (20 MB versus 36 MB) and lower memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) further explain the performance gap. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PE wins in all performance categories. The data shows its largest advantages in floating-point math (-75.8%), integer math (-75.6%), and data encryption (-68.2%). These results indicate the Core 9 excels in scientific computing, financial modeling, and encryption-heavy workloads. Its multithread score of 36810 versus 11685 suggests strong performance in rendering, video encoding, and other parallel tasks.

The Core 9 also dominates in data compression (405885 versus 133434), extended instructions (24630 versus 8615), and prime number finding (203 versus 72). These strengths point toward database work, simulation, and complex algorithm execution. The physics score of 3120 versus 1278, while the smallest relative gap at -59%, still represents a substantial absolute difference.

The Core 5 211TE's advantages are not in performance but in operational characteristics. It consumes 45 W versus 65 W, which may translate to lower cooling requirements and potentially quieter operation. Its die size of 215 mm² versus no recorded die size for the Core 9 suggests a smaller physical footprint. The lower launch MSRP of $221 versus $549 reflects a different market position, though pricing is not a performance metric.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Core 9 leads with 3650 versus 1408 in passmark single-thread, a -61.4% delta. This affects application launch times, browser responsiveness, and lightly threaded productivity software. The Core 5's 1408 score is not weak in absolute terms, but it trails the Core 9 significantly.

In summary, the Core 9 273PE is the clear choice for any workload where raw processing power matters. The Core 5 211TE remains a viable option for systems where lower power draw is prioritized, but the recorded data shows no performance scenario where it beats the Core 9. The database records 17 benchmark wins for the Core 9 and zero for the Core 5.