Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 211E is the clear performance leader, delivering dramatically higher benchmark scores across every recorded test. The Core Ultra 5 125UL, with no recorded benchmark data and a 50th percentile ranking, cannot match the 211E's 86th percentile standing. For workloads requiring raw computational throughput, the Core 5 211E is the only defensible choice from the available data. The Core Ultra 5 125UL, however, operates at a 15 TDP versus the 211E's 65 TDP, indicating a substantially lower power envelope. The 125UL also integrates Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics, which may be preferable for systems prioritizing integrated visual output over processor performance. The 211E offers ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, features absent from the 125UL. Ultimately, the Core 5 211E serves users demanding maximum compute performance, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL suits deployments where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than raw speed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². It features 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement with performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 5 125UL, by contrast, uses the Meteor Lake-PS codename under the Meteor Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 1. This chip is built on Intel's 7 nm process node, which despite the numerically smaller label, represents a different manufacturing generation. The 125UL offers 12 cores but only 14 threads, a configuration that suggests a mix of performance, efficient, and low-power cores where not all cores contribute additional threads.

Cache hierarchies differ markedly. The 211E provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The 125UL counters with 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. The 211E's larger L3 pool benefits multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access shared data. The 125UL's larger per-core L1 cache may aid single-thread efficiency, but its smaller L3 limits aggregate data reuse.

Memory support separates the pair. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 125UL supports only DDR5 with capacity depending on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the 125UL achieves 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the 211E's 76.8 GB/s. The 125UL's higher bandwidth stems from its native DDR5 support, while the 211E's compatibility with older DDR4 likely constrains its peak throughput. ECC memory is supported on the 211E but not on the 125UL, making the former suitable for error-sensitive computing environments.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The 211E provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the 125UL offers PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes. This gives the 211E double the lane count and a newer generation, supporting faster expansion cards and more direct device connections. The 125UL's integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG 64EU, represents a more capable GPU solution than the 211E's UHD Graphics 730, though both are integrated rather than discrete.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 cores, while the Core 5 211E has 10 cores. However, the 211E has 16 threads compared to the 125UL's 14 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each chip?

A: The Core 5 211E boosts up to 4.90 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL boosts up to 4.30 GHz. The 211E also has a higher base clock at 2.70 GHz versus 1.30 GHz.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 125UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU graphics, while the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730. The Arc solution is designed for more demanding visual tasks.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these chips?

A: The Core 5 211E has a 65 TDP, whereas the Core Ultra 5 125UL has a 15 TDP. This indicates the 125UL consumes considerably less power.

Q: Which processor was released more recently?

A: The Core 5 211E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL was released on 2024-04-07. The 211E is the newer part.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several distinguishing specifications between the two processors.

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL |

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

| Cores | 10 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 | 15 |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Meteor Lake-PS |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 (depends on motherboard) |

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | $309 |

| Part Number | SRQERQ65F | SRN96 |

The 211E uses Socket 1700, while the 125UL uses Socket 1851, meaning they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard. The 211E's 10 nm process and 257 mm² die contrast with the 125UL's 7 nm process, though the 125UL's die size is not recorded. The 211E has a higher launch MSRP of $221 compared to the 125UL's $309, which is notable given the 211E's superior benchmark performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are not available in the recorded data, as the headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty. However, the Core 5 211E has an extensive set of individual benchmark scores, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has no recorded benchmarks at all. The 211E's avgBenchmarkScore is 37829, placing it at the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The 125UL's avgBenchmarkScore is 0, with a 50th percentile ranking.

The 211E's nearest rivals provide context for its performance. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 scores 37804, a delta of 0.1% below the 211E. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 scores 37762, 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 scores 37904, 0.2% higher, and the Intel Core i9-14901E scores 37911, also 0.2% higher. These deltas are minimal, indicating the 211E sits in a tightly contested performance tier. The 211E effectively matches these competitors, with differences under one percent.

Specific 211E benchmark results illustrate its capabilities. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2055 in multi-core and 289 in single-core. Cinebench R20 shows 8563 multi-core and 1208 single-core. Cinebench R23 yields 20389 multi-core and 2878 single-core. These scores demonstrate strong scaling across rendering workloads. Passmark tests reveal specialized strengths: data compression scores 346757, data encryption scores 17938, extended instructions score 21592, floating point math scores 66402, and integer math scores 88117. The multithread score is 23833, with a single-thread score of 4006. Physics tests produce 702, and random string sorting produces 34308. The find prime numbers score is 43, a notably low figure that suggests this particular workload is not a strength of the 211E.

Because the 125UL lacks benchmark entries, no direct comparison of scores is possible. The database records zero wins for either processor in head-to-head tests. The 211E's percentile advantage (86 versus 50) and its substantial benchmark suite indicate that it outperforms the 125UL across all measurable dimensions, though the absence of 125UL data prevents quantifying the exact margin.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211E wins decisively in every benchmark category where data exists. Its Cinebench scores, Passmark math and encryption results, and multithread performance all point to a processor built for sustained computational workloads. The 211E's 16 threads, 4.90 GHz boost clock, and 20 MB of L3 cache make it suitable for rendering, scientific computing, data compression, and encryption tasks. Its ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes further position it for server-like or workstation environments where data integrity and high-speed expansion are priorities. The 65 TDP, while higher than the 125UL, is typical for a desktop processor aimed at performance.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL wins in power efficiency, with a 15 TDP that is a fraction of the 211E's 65 TDP. This makes the 125UL preferable for fanless or low-power embedded systems, always-on appliances, or compact chassis with limited cooling. Its 12 cores and 14 threads provide parallel processing capacity, though at lower clock speeds (1.30 GHz base, 4.30 GHz boost). The 125UL's Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics represent a more capable visual solution than the 211E's UHD Graphics 730, making it better suited for media playback, basic GPU-accelerated tasks, or display workloads without a discrete graphics card. The 125UL also delivers higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, which benefits memory-intensive applications despite the smaller 12 MB L3 cache. Its newer 7 nm process node may contribute to the reduced power draw.

The 125UL's DDR5-only memory support, while narrower than the 211E's DDR4/DDR5 flexibility, aligns with modern platform expectations. Its Socket 1851 suggests a newer motherboard ecosystem, though the 211E's Socket 1700 has broader existing infrastructure. The 125UL's lack of ECC support and reduced PCIe lanes (Gen 4, 8 lanes) limit its appeal in enterprise or high-expansion scenarios. The 211E's higher launch MSRP of $221 versus the 125UL's $309 is a data point, but performance metrics rather than cost dominate the comparison.

For users with workloads that stress multi-core rendering, encryption, or integer math, the Core 5 211E is the only viable option given the recorded benchmarks. For deployments where power consumption is the primary constraint, and integrated graphics quality matters more than processor throughput, the Core Ultra 5 125UL offers a distinct advantage, though its benchmark performance remains undocumented. The choice reduces to a trade-off: maximum compute capability from the 211E versus minimal power usage and superior integrated graphics from the 125UL.