Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits this comparison cleanly by workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 5 211E takes 4. If your priority is single-thread responsiveness, floating-point math, encryption, or anything that benefits from modern architecture, the Core Ultra 5 225 is the clear pick. It leads by as much as 732.6% in prime-number finding and 233.6% in physics tests, and it holds a 27% advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The Intel Core 5 211E, however, is not a loser. It wins Cinebench R20 multicore by 26.2% and matches that margin in single-core R20. It also crushes the Ultra 5 225 in integer math (25.8% ahead) and data compression (12.7% ahead). If your workload is integer-heavy, compression-bound, or specifically tuned for the older Cinebench R20 test, the 211E is the more capable part.

The overall database percentile ranking slightly favors the 211E: it sits at the 86th percentile versus the Ultra 5 225's 85th. The average benchmark score for the 211E is 37829, which edges the Ultra 5 225's 36938 by roughly 2.4%. That ordering flips the head-to-head narrative, but the closer look shows why: the 211E's wins are massive in specific tests, while the Ultra 5 225 spreads its dominance across more categories. Choose the Ultra 5 225 for general desktop use, creative workloads, and anything that rewards modern IPC. Choose the 211E for integer math, compression, or legacy Cinebench R20 results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, with an Arrow Lake-S design and 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 211E uses Intel's own 10 nm process, with a Bartlett Lake design and a 257 mm² die. That node difference explains much of the performance gap: the Ultra 5 225 has dramatically better transistor density, which shows up in its single-thread scores.

Both chips have 10 cores, but the thread counts differ. The Ultra 5 225 runs 10 threads (no hyperthreading), while the 211E runs 16 threads. That 6-thread advantage helps the 211E in parallel integer work, as the Cinebench R20 and integer math results confirm. Cache structures also diverge. The Ultra 5 225 provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, versus 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 for the 211E. Both share 20 MB of L3, so the total last-level cache is identical, but the larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Ultra 5 225 feed its faster single-thread execution.

Memory support differs significantly. The Ultra 5 225 supports only DDR5 with dual-channel access and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its bandwidth drops to 76.8 GB/s. The 211E also adds ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 225 lacks. For the integrated GPU, the Ultra 5 225 carries Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, while the 211E uses the older UHD Graphics 730. PCIe connectivity also favors the Ultra 5 225: 20 CPU lanes of Gen 5 versus 16 lanes on the 211E.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are contradictory across versions, which is the most interesting part of this comparison. In R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 225 scores 2609 against 2055, a 27% win. In R23 multicore, it again wins by 27%: 25891 versus 20389. But in R20 multicore, the 211E flips the script with 8563 versus 6317, a 26.2% margin. The same inversion happens in single-core: R15 and R23 favor the Ultra 5 225 by 27.3% and 27% respectively, while R20 favors the 211E by 26.2%. This is not a statistical anomaly; it suggests the 211E is specifically optimized for the R20 workload or that the R20 test exercises a different instruction path. Builders should check which Cinebench version their preferred review sites use.

PassMark results show a clear division of labor. The Ultra 5 225 wins data encryption by 24.2% (22285 versus 17938), extended instructions by 25.8% (27162 versus 21592), and floating-point math by 38.6% (92038 versus 66402). Its biggest margins come in prime-number finding: 358 versus 43, a 732.6% blowout. Physics tests also favor it heavily: 2342 versus 702, a 233.6% lead. Multithread performance goes to the Ultra 5 225 by 27.8% (30459 versus 23833), and single-thread by 10.1% (4412 versus 4006). Random string sorting is close: the Ultra 5 225 wins by only 6.7% (36590 versus 34308).

The 211E's wins are concentrated in integer-heavy tasks. Integer math goes to the 211E by 25.8% (88117 versus 65345). Data compression favors it by 12.7% (346757 versus 302811). These are meaningful advantages, especially for file archiving or database workloads. But the 211E's loss in encryption (which is also integer-based) suggests its strength is not universal across all integer operations.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows these differences between the two processors:

• Threads: 10 on the Ultra 5 225, 16 on the 211E
• Base clock: 3.30 GHz on the Ultra 5 225, 2.70 GHz on the 211E
• Boost clock: identical at 4.90 GHz for both
• Process node: 3 nm (TSMC) for the Ultra 5 225, 10 nm (Intel) for the 211E
• Transistors: 17,800 million on the Ultra 5 225, not recorded for the 211E
• Die size: 243 mm² for the Ultra 5 225, 257 mm² for the 211E
• L1 cache: 192 KB per core on the Ultra 5 225, 80 KB per core on the 211E
• L2 cache: 3 MB per core on the Ultra 5 225, 2 MB per core on the 211E
• Memory support: DDR5 only for the Ultra 5 225, DDR4 and DDR5 for the 211E
• Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s for the Ultra 5 225, 76.8 GB/s for the 211E
• ECC memory: not supported on the Ultra 5 225, supported on the 211E
• PCIe lanes: 20 Gen 5 lanes for the Ultra 5 225, 16 Gen 5 lanes for the 211E
• Integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG 16EU for the Ultra 5 225, UHD Graphics 730 for the 211E
• Socket: Intel Socket 1851 for the Ultra 5 225, Intel Socket 1700 for the 211E
• Release date: 2025-01-06 for the Ultra 5 225, 2025-01-12 for the 211E

The launch MSRP for the Ultra 5 225 is $246. The launch MSRP for the 211E is $221.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225. It wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 27.3% (368 versus 289), R23 single-core by 27% (3655 versus 2878), and PassMark single-thread by 10.1% (4412 versus 4006). The only exception is Cinebench R20 single-core, where the 211E leads by 26.2% (1208 versus 891).

Q: Why does the Intel Core 5 211E win Cinebench R20 but lose R15 and R23?

A: The recorded data shows the 211E has 16 threads versus 10 on the Ultra 5 225, and it wins R20 multicore by 26.2% (8563 versus 6317). The same margin appears in R20 single-core. This is likely a workload-specific optimization, as the R15 and R23 tests both favor the Ultra 5 225 by 27% or more.

Q: Is the Core 5 211E better for memory flexibility?

A: Yes. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Ultra 5 225 only supports DDR5. The 211E also adds ECC memory support, which the Ultra 5 225 lacks. However, the Ultra 5 225 has higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor wins in integer-heavy workloads?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E. It beats the Ultra 5 225 in PassMark integer math by 25.8% (88117 versus 65345) and in data compression by 12.7% (346757 versus 302811). But the Ultra 5 225 wins data encryption by 24.2%, so integer performance is not uniformly better on the 211E.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The Ultra 5 225 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, while the 211E uses UHD Graphics 730. The database does not provide separate GPU benchmark scores, so the comparison is limited to architecture and execution unit counts.

Q: Which CPU has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E, with an average benchmark score of 37829 versus 36938 for the Ultra 5 225. The 211E also ranks at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the Ultra 5 225's 85th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the general-purpose winner. It dominates in Cinebench R15 and R23, both multicore and single-core, with margins around 27%. It is dramatically ahead in prime-number finding (732.6%), physics (233.6%), floating-point math (38.6%), and multithread (27.8%). It also wins encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, and single-thread PassMark. For desktop productivity, creative applications, and anything that uses modern instruction sets, the Ultra 5 225 is the better buy.

The Intel Core 5 211E is the specialized winner. It takes Cinebench R20 by 26.2% in both multicore and single-core, which matters if you rely on that specific benchmark for validation. It wins integer math by 25.8% and data compression by 12.7%. Its 16 threads (versus 10) give it an edge in parallel integer work. The 211E also supports ECC memory and DDR4, making it the only choice here for systems that require those features. Socket 1700 compatibility may also matter if you have an existing motherboard, though the database does not record platform upgrade paths.

The overall score average slightly favors the 211E, but that is driven by its massive wins in a few tests rather than consistent superiority. The Ultra 5 225 wins more categories and wins them by larger margins in most cases. For a balanced desktop processor, the data points to the Core Ultra 5 225. For integer-heavy server-style workloads or ECC memory requirements, the Core 5 211E is the one to pick.