Intel Core 5 211TE vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the Intel Core 5 211TE against the Intel Processor N250. The Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and no head-to-head test results exist for this pairing. The Intel Core 5 211TE, however, has a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark results. Its average benchmark score is 15370, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database. That percentile rank places it above the majority of processors, and its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 7543 (average score 15477, delta -0.7%), the AMD EPYC 7702P (average score 15130, delta 1.6%), the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U (average score 15682, delta -2%), and the Intel Core i3-1315U (average score 15022, delta 2.3%).

The Core 5 211TE delivers 1229 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 173 points in single-core. In Cinebench R20 it scores 5124 multi-core and 723 single-core. Cinebench R23 results show 12201 multi-core and 1722 single-core. PassMark measurements include 133434 for data compression, 7231 for data encryption, 8615 for extended instructions, 72 for find prime numbers, 26150 for floating point math, 33991 for integer math, 11685 for multithread, 1278 for physics, 14838 for random string sorting, and 1408 for single-thread performance. The average benchmark score of 15370 sits within a narrow band of its closest rivals, within roughly 2% of the EPYC 7543 and Ryzen 3 7440U, and about 1.6% above the EPYC 7702P. The Core 5 211TE holds a 2.3% advantage over the Core i3-1315U in average score.

Since the Intel Processor N250 lacks any benchmark entries, no comparative wins or losses can be quantified. The data confirms only the Core 5 211TE side of the comparison.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Processor N250 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Intel Processor N250 has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. All performance data in this comparison comes from the Intel Core 5 211TE.

Q: What is the Core 5 211TE's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Core 5 211TE sits in the 69th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 15370.

Q: How close are the Core 5 211TE's nearest rivals in average score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7543 is 0.7% lower, the AMD EPYC 7702P is 1.6% higher, the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U is 2% lower, and the Intel Core i3-1315U is 2.3% higher.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 211TE supports DDR4 and DDR5, while the Intel Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5.

Q: Do both processors have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both use UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both have multiplierUnlocked set to false, meaning neither is unlocked.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) generation. The Intel Processor N250 uses the Twin Lake codename and architecture, and belongs to the Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) generation. Both are built on a 10 nm process and fabricated by Intel, but they diverge sharply in core configuration. The Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads. This is a fundamental difference: the Core 5 has more than twice the cores and four times the threads.

Cache layouts differ as well. The Core 5 211TE uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The N250 uses 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 per-core figure is higher on the N250, but the Core 5's larger aggregate L3 (20 MB vs 6 MB) reflects its bigger core count and desktop positioning.

The Core 5 211TE is a desktop part with a 45 TDP, while the N250 is a mobile part with a 6 TDP. The Core 5 uses Intel Socket 1700, whereas the N250 uses Intel BGA 1264. The Core 5 has a die size of 215 mm²; the N250 has no recorded die size. The Core 5's PCIe support is Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the N250 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Core 5 supports ECC memory; the N250 does not.

The Core 5 211TE was released on January 12, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $221. The N250 was released on January 6, 2025, and has no recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers differ: SRQDL for the Core 5, SRPNS for the N250.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211TE | Intel Processor N250 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base clock | 1.70 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Twin Lake |

| Generation | Core 5 (Bartlett Lake) | Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N) |

| Die size | 215 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 9 lanes (CPU only) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SRQDL | SRPNS |

The base clock difference is stark: 1.70 GHz on the Core 5 versus 0.10 GHz on the N250. Boost clocks are closer, at 4.80 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. Memory bandwidth more than doubles on the Core 5 (76.8 GB/s vs 38.4 GB/s), driven by dual-channel versus single-channel memory bus. The Core 5's PCIe implementation is two generations newer and offers seven additional lanes.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Core 5 211TE has a full benchmark suite and a 69th percentile ranking. The Intel Processor N250 has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no rivals. All available performance evidence favors the Core 5 211TE.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Core 5's 10 cores and 16 threads versus the N250's 4 cores and 4 threads is decisive. The Core 5 also carries a much higher boost clock (4.80 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and more than double the memory bandwidth. The N250's advantages are limited to platform efficiency: a 6 W TDP versus 45 W, support for LPDDR5 memory, and a newer release date by six days. It also has a lower base clock, which is likely a power-saving characteristic, but the practical performance consequence is unknown without benchmark data.

The Core 5 is the only part with measurable performance in this comparison. Its average score of 15370 places it in the same band as server-class EPYC parts and a recent Ryzen 3 mobile chip, which indicates solid all-around capability for a desktop processor. The N250 cannot be assessed quantitatively from the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211TE wins in every measurable category. It has more cores, more threads, a higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, dual-channel memory, ECC support, PCIe Gen 5, and a complete set of benchmark results. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12201 and single-core score of 1722 indicate strong performance in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded tasks. PassMark results such as 33991 in integer math and 26150 in floating point math reinforce this.

The N250 wins in power efficiency. Its 6 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Core 5's 45 W, making it suitable for low-power mobile designs. It also supports LPDDR5 memory, which the Core 5 does not, and its per-core L1 cache is larger at 96 KB versus 80 KB. Its shared 2 MB L2 cache is a different layout from the Core 5's per-core 1.25 MB L2, but the total L2 on the Core 5 (12.5 MB across 10 cores) exceeds the N250's 2 MB. The N250's single-channel memory bus and Gen 3 PCIe limit its bandwidth and expansion capabilities.

For a desktop build requiring sustained multi-core work, memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, the Core 5 211TE is the only part with data to support a choice. For a low-power mobile system where the 6 W TDP and LPDDR5 support matter more than raw throughput, the N250 has a defined role, but its performance remains unquantified in the database.