Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 3 205 represent two distinct approaches to desktop processing within Intel’s current lineup. The Core 5 211E, built on the Bartlett Lake design with a 10 nm process, offers 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 3 205, part of the Arrow Lake-S family on a 3 nm node from TSMC, provides 8 cores and 8 threads. The benchmark data shows a near-split in workload wins, with the Core 5 211E taking 9 tests and the Core Ultra 3 205 taking 8 tests. This distribution indicates that neither processor is universally dominant, and the choice between them hinges on the specific type of application being run.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E establishes its advantage in tasks that rely on sustained multi-threaded throughput and integer-heavy operations. Across the Cinebench suite, which includes R15, R20, and R23 versions, the Core 5 211E consistently finishes ahead in both single-core and multi-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20389 against 19856 for the Core Ultra 3 205, a margin of 2.7%. The same 2.7% edge appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, with scores of 2055 versus 2001, and in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with 8563 versus 8339. This pattern suggests that the Core 5 211E’s additional cores and threads translate into measurable gains in rendering workloads that scale with parallel execution.

The Core 5 211E also wins decisively in integer math, scoring 88117 compared to 54755 for the Core Ultra 3 205, a difference of 60.9%. Data compression is another strong area, with the Core 5 211E posting 346757 versus 260651, a 33% lead. Random string sorting also favors the Core 5 211E, with a score of 34308 against 31083, a 10.4% advantage. These results point to a processor that handles arithmetic-heavy and compression-based tasks with clear superiority.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205, on the other hand, wins in single-threaded performance and in several specialized compute categories. In PassMark single-thread testing, it scores 4575 against 4006 for the Core 5 211E, a 12.4% lead. Floating point math also favors the Core Ultra 3 205, with 75136 versus 66402, an 11.6% advantage. The Core Ultra 3 205 takes physics calculations by a wide margin, scoring 2016 against 702, a 65.2% difference. Prime number generation shows an even larger gap, with 268 versus 43, an 84% lead. Data encryption and extended instructions both go to the Core Ultra 3 205, with scores of 18772 versus 17938 and 22578 versus 21592 respectively, each a 4.4% edge. The PassMark multithread test also favors the Core Ultra 3 205, with 26167 against 23833, an 8.9% advantage, despite the Core 5 211E having more threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 scores 19856. The Core 5 211E leads by 2.7%.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between these two CPUs?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 4575 against 4006 for the Core 5 211E, giving the Core Ultra 3 205 a 12.4% advantage.

Q: Which processor handles integer math workloads better?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 88117 in PassMark integer math, compared to 54755 for the Core Ultra 3 205, a 60.9% lead for the Core 5 211E.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 3 205 win any multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Core Ultra 3 205 wins the PassMark multithread test with 26167 against 23833 for the Core 5 211E, an 8.9% advantage, even though the Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads versus 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the difference in data compression performance?

A: The Core 5 211E scores 346757 in PassMark data compression, while the Core Ultra 3 205 scores 260651. The Core 5 211E leads by 33%.

Q: Which CPU has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829, while the Core Ultra 3 205 has an average of 31473.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking single result in the head-to-head data is PassMark integer math. The Core 5 211E produces 88117, while the Core Ultra 3 205 produces 54755, a 60.9% difference. This is the largest margin in either direction across all recorded tests and indicates a fundamental strength in arithmetic logic for the Core 5 211E. Data compression follows a similar pattern, with the Core 5 211E at 346757 and the Core Ultra 3 205 at 260651, a 33% gap. These two results alone account for the Core 5 211E’s overall benchmark average of 37829, which sits 20.2% above the Core Ultra 3 205’s 31473.

The Core Ultra 3 205 counters with its own set of decisive wins. The physics test shows a 65.2% advantage, with scores of 2016 versus 702. Prime number generation is even more lopsided, with the Core Ultra 3 205 scoring 268 against 43, an 84% difference. Floating point math gives the Core Ultra 3 205 an 11.6% edge, with 75136 versus 66402. Single-thread performance, measured by PassMark, favors the Core Ultra 3 205 by 12.4%, with 4575 versus 4006. The multithread test also goes to the Core Ultra 3 205, despite the Core 5 211E’s higher core and thread counts, with 26167 versus 23833, an 8.9% lead.

In the Cinebench tests, the Core 5 211E wins every instance, but the margins are narrow. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 289 versus 282, a 2.5% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1208 versus 1177, a 2.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2878 versus 2803, a 2.7% lead. The multi-core versions follow the same pattern, with all three R15, R20, and R23 tests showing a 2.7% advantage for the Core 5 211E. These consistent, small margins indicate that the Core 5 211E’s extra cores provide a modest but reliable benefit in threaded rendering tasks.

Random string sorting is another win for the Core 5 211E, with 34308 versus 31083, a 10.4% margin. Data encryption and extended instructions go to the Core Ultra 3 205, each with a 4.4% lead, with scores of 18772 versus 17938 and 22578 versus 21592 respectively. The overall win count stands at 9 for the Core 5 211E and 8 for the Core Ultra 3 205, confirming that the two processors are closely matched in overall capability but diverge sharply in specific workload categories.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core configuration, memory support, and platform requirements. The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clock speeds differ, with the Core 5 211E running at 2.70 GHz and the Core Ultra 3 205 at 3.80 GHz. Both reach 4.90 GHz boost clocks. Thermal design power is 65 watts for the Core 5 211E and 57 watts for the Core Ultra 3 205.

The Core 5 211E uses the Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Intel Socket 1851. Memory support also varies: the Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 3 205 supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 3 205, rated at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the Core 5 211E. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 3 205 does not.

PCIe lane counts differ, with the Core 5 211E offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes and the Core Ultra 3 205 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the Core 5 211E using UHD Graphics 730 and the Core Ultra 3 205 using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Core Ultra 3 205 has a die size of 243 mm². Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 5 211E launched on January 12, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core Ultra 3 205 launched on July 31, 2025, with a launch MSRP of $140.

Architecture Differences

The Core 5 211E is built on the Bartlett Lake design using a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Core Ultra 3 205 is fabricated by TSMC and contains 17,800 million transistors, a figure not recorded for the Core 5 211E. Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 3 205 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Core Ultra 3 205 likely contribute to its single-thread and physics advantages, while the larger shared L3 cache on the Core 5 211E supports its multi-threaded workload performance.

The Core 5 211E is part of the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 3 205 belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 3 generation. The socket difference, 1700 versus 1851, means these processors are not interchangeable in the same motherboard. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which provides flexibility for systems with older memory, while the Core Ultra 3 205’s DDR5-only support aligns with its newer platform. The Core Ultra 3 205 also has higher memory bandwidth, 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, and more PCIe lanes, 20 versus 16, both of which are platform-level advantages.

ECC memory support on the Core 5 211E is absent on the Core Ultra 3 205, which may matter for stability-sensitive applications. The production status for both processors is listed as active, and both are desktop market segments. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiating factor in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear workload-based split between these two processors. The Intel Core 5 211E is the stronger choice for integer-heavy tasks, data compression, and threaded rendering workloads, as shown by its 60.9% lead in integer math, 33% lead in data compression, and consistent 2.7% margins in all Cinebench multi-core tests. Its 10 cores and 16 threads provide a measurable advantage in applications that scale with parallelism, and its higher average benchmark score of 37829 reflects this broader strength.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the better option for single-threaded and floating-point workloads, where it leads by 12.4% in PassMark single-thread and 11.6% in floating point math. Its dominance in physics calculations, with a 65.2% margin, and prime number generation, with an 84% margin, makes it particularly suited to simulation and scientific workloads that rely on these operations. The Core Ultra 3 205 also wins the PassMark multithread test despite having fewer threads, which indicates that its per-core efficiency, supported by larger L1 and L2 caches, can overcome its thread deficit in certain scenarios.

The Core 5 211E’s support for DDR4 and ECC memory makes it a flexible option for systems that require those features, while the Core Ultra 3 205’s higher memory bandwidth and additional PCIe lanes suit it to newer platforms with faster storage and expansion needs. The launch MSRP difference, with the Core 5 211E at $221 and the Core Ultra 3 205 at $140, is recorded in the database. The Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 3 205 sits at the 82nd percentile. For users prioritizing integer math, compression, and multi-threaded rendering, the data supports the Core 5 211E. For users prioritizing single-thread speed, floating-point operations, and physics simulation, the data supports the Core Ultra 3 205.