Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Core i5-9600K Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Intel Core 5 211TE dominates in multithreaded workloads and modern rendering benchmarks, while the Intel Core i5-9600K retains surprising strengths in specific PassMark tests, most notably single-thread throughput. The Core 5 211TE wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, where its advantage ranges from 34.7% to 35.2%. That consistency suggests a generational leap in architecture and core count that the older i5-9600K cannot counter in CPU-bound rendering.

However, the i5-9600K is not obsolete across the board. It wins PassMark data compression by 10.2%, extended instructions by 33.3%, random string sorting by 19%, and the PassMark single-thread test by a substantial 48.4%. For workloads that rely on legacy instruction paths or specific string manipulation routines, the older chip still has meaningful performance. The Core 5 211TE should be the default choice for modern multi-core productivity, content creation, and any task that scales with threads. The i5-9600K remains relevant only for narrowly defined single-thread or legacy-optimized workloads, and even then, the margin is workload-specific rather than universal.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this split: the Core 5 211TE averages 15370 across all recorded tests, while the i5-9600K averages 14605. Both sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs in the database, but the newer part delivers its results with a 45 W TDP versus 95 W for the i5-9600K. The Core 5 211TE also carries a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, yet the i5-9600K still wins PassMark single-thread by a wide margin, which points to differences in how the two architectures handle that specific benchmark rather than raw clock advantage.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211TE is built on Bartlett Lake, a 10 nm design from Intel, while the i5-9600K uses Coffee Lake on 14 nm. This process gap explains much of the efficiency difference: the Core 5 211TE draws 45 W, the i5-9600K draws 95 W. The newer chip also packs 10 cores and 16 threads, compared to 6 cores and 6 threads on the i5-9600K, which has no hyper-threading. That thread deficit is a major reason the older chip falls behind in every Cinebench multi-core test.

Cache hierarchies differ sharply. The Core 5 211TE offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The i5-9600K has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and only 9 MB of shared L3. The larger L2 per core on the newer chip is notable; it suggests better per-core data locality for workloads that fit within that 1.25 MB allocation.

Memory support also diverges. The Core 5 211TE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The i5-9600K supports only DDR4, also dual-channel, but tops out at 42.7 GB/s. The newer part also adds ECC memory support, which the i5-9600K lacks. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core 5 211TE provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the i5-9600K provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ: the Core 5 211TE uses UHD Graphics 730, the i5-9600K uses UHD 630. The socket is entirely different, Intel Socket 1700 for the new part versus Intel Socket 1151 for the old one. The Core 5 211TE has a locked multiplier, while the i5-9600K is multiplier-unlocked, meaning the older chip offers overclocking headroom that the newer one does not. Production status also separates them: the Core 5 211TE is active, the i5-9600K is end-of-life. The Core 5 211TE launched in January 2025 with a launch MSRP of $221; the i5-9600K released in late 2018 with no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 12201 against 9055 for the i5-9600K, a 34.7% advantage. The R20 multi-core result is similar: 5124 versus 3803, a 34.7% lead. R15 multi-core shows 1229 versus 912, a 34.8% margin.

Q: Does the i5-9600K win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, the PassMark single-thread test is its biggest win. The i5-9600K scores 2727 against 1408 for the Core 5 211TE, a 48.4% advantage. It also wins extended instructions by 33.3% and random string sorting by 19%.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads. The i5-9600K has 6 cores and 6 threads. The newer chip has no hyper-threading on the older part, which explains the multi-core score gaps.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Core 5 211TE has a 45 W TDP, while the i5-9600K has a 95 W TDP. The newer chip delivers higher multi-core scores while drawing less than half the power.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory?

A: No. The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i5-9600K supports only DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory.

Q: Is the i5-9600K still in production?

A: No, the database lists it as end-of-life. The Core 5 211TE is listed as active production.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads; the i5-9600K has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ: 1.70 GHz for the newer part versus 3.70 GHz for the older one. Boost clocks are closer but still distinct: 4.80 GHz versus 4.60 GHz. TDP is a major gap: 45 W versus 95 W.

Cache allocations differ substantially. L1 is 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus 256 KB per core. L3 is 20 MB shared versus 9 MB shared. The socket changes from Intel Socket 1700 to Intel Socket 1151. Process node shifts from 10 nm to 14 nm.

Memory support diverges: DDR4 and DDR5 versus DDR4 only. Memory bandwidth goes from 76.8 GB/s to 42.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211TE but not on the i5-9600K. PCIe generation moves from Gen 5 to Gen 3, both with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 versus UHD 630.

The Core 5 211TE has a locked multiplier; the i5-9600K is unlocked. Part numbers differ: SRQDL versus SR3WZ. Release dates are far apart: January 2025 versus October 2018. The Core 5 211TE has a launch MSRP of $221; the i5-9600K has no recorded launch MSRP. Production status is active versus end-of-life. The die size is 215 mm² for the Core 5 211TE; no die size is recorded for the i5-9600K.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite is a total sweep for the Core 5 211TE. Every single test, multi-core and single-core, lands between 34.7% and 35.2% in favor of the newer chip. The smallest margin is 34.7%, in R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core. The largest is 35.2% in R15 single-core. This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural efficiency gain rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results tell a more complex story. The Core 5 211TE wins data encryption by 121.2%, scoring 7231 versus 3269. That is its largest victory anywhere in the benchmark set. It also wins find prime numbers by 67.4%, physics by 71.3%, integer math by 16.3%, floating point math by 5%, and multithread by 9.9%. The floating point margin is narrow, which indicates the i5-9600K remains competitive in that specific arithmetic class.

The i5-9600K counters with four wins. The PassMark single-thread test shows 2727 versus 1408, a 48.4% gap. Extended instructions favor the older chip by 33.3%, with scores of 12914 versus 8615. Random string sorting goes to the i5-9600K by 19%, 18313 versus 14838. Data compression also favors the older chip by 10.2%, 148639 versus 133434.

The aggregate picture shows 12 wins for the Core 5 211TE and 5 for the i5-9600K. But the wins are not evenly distributed in importance. The newer chip wins all rendering workloads and the majority of compute-heavy PassMark tests. The older chip wins specific legacy or specialized routines, and its single-thread PassMark victory is large enough to warrant attention for anyone relying on that exact benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211TE is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity. It wins every Cinebench test, with margins around 35%. It also dominates in data encryption, physics, prime number finding, integer math, and multithread PassMark. The 10-core, 16-thread configuration combined with DDR5 support and 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth makes it suited for rendering, compilation, virtualization, and any workload that scales across cores. The 45 W TDP also makes it attractive for systems where power efficiency matters, especially given it outperforms a 95 W chip across most tests.

The i5-9600K wins in narrowly defined areas. Its PassMark single-thread score is 48.4% higher, which is a massive gap in that specific metric. It also wins extended instructions by 33.3%, random string sorting by 19%, and data compression by 10.2%. These are not trivial margins, but they are confined to specific PassMark subtests. For users running legacy software that relies on those instruction paths, or for workloads dominated by string manipulation and compression, the older chip still has a role.

The i5-9600K also offers an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is possible, while the Core 5 211TE is locked. That could narrow some gaps in practice, but the recorded data does not include overclocked results, so any benefit remains speculative. The i5-9600K fits Socket 1151, which may be relevant for users upgrading an existing platform without changing motherboards. The Core 5 211TE requires Socket 1700, meaning a newer board is mandatory.

For most users, the data points to the Core 5 211TE. Its win count, average benchmark score of 15370 versus 14605, lower TDP, modern memory support, and active production status make it the more future-proof option. The i5-9600K is a legacy part with specific strengths, but those strengths are increasingly niche. The single-thread PassMark result is the most striking outlier in the entire comparison, and it is worth investigating further for anyone whose workload mirrors that test exactly. Otherwise, the architectural advantages of Bartlett Lake, from process node to cache size to core count, are reflected consistently across the recorded benchmarks.