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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits these two Intel desktop processors into distinct personalities. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins the majority of head-to-head tests, taking 12 of 17 comparisons, but the Intel Core 5 211E counters with decisive victories in specific workloads. The most dramatic single result is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core 5 211E scores 2878 against the Core Ultra 5 225F's 1893, a 52% advantage. That is a massive margin for a single-threaded test and signals that the Core 5 211E's architecture handles certain legacy workloads with far greater efficiency. The Core 5 211E also leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core, posting 20389 versus 16467, a 23.8% gap.

The Core Ultra 5 225F, however, dominates the Cinebench R15 and R20 suites. In R15 multi-core, it scores 2660 against 2055, a 22.7% advantage. In R20 multi-core, it posts 11059 versus 8563, another 22.6% lead. The single-core results in those older Cinebench versions favor the Core Ultra 5 225F in R20 (1561 versus 1208, 22.6% higher), while R15 single-core is nearly a tie, with the Core 5 211E edging ahead by just 0.7% (289 versus 287). This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests the two chips respond differently to the specific instruction mixes and threading patterns each test uses.

PassMark results reinforce the split. The Core Ultra 5 225F wins in floating point math (92554 versus 66402, 28.3% higher), physics (2430 versus 702, a 71.1% gap), extended instructions (28027 versus 21592, 23% higher), data encryption (22648 versus 17938, 20.8% higher), and prime number finding (352 versus 43, a staggering 87.8% advantage). It also leads in multithread (31004 versus 23833, 23.1% higher), random string sorting (37325 versus 34308, 8.1% higher), and single-thread (4397 versus 4006, 8.9% higher). The Core 5 211E counters in integer math (88117 versus 66417, 32.7% higher) and data compression (346757 versus 310843, 11.6% higher). The pattern is clear: the Core Ultra 5 225F excels at floating-point and encryption workloads, while the Core 5 211E holds its ground in integer-heavy and compression tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design philosophies. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 257 mm². The Core Ultra 5 225F belongs to the Arrow Lake-S family, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and uses a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC with a smaller 243 mm² die and 17,800 million transistors. This process advantage likely explains the Core Ultra 5 225F's higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.70 GHz on the Core 5 211E, although both boost to 4.90 GHz.

Core counts are identical at 10, but threading differs fundamentally. The Core 5 211E supports 16 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 threads with no simultaneous multithreading. Cache layouts also diverge. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Core Ultra 5 225F offers 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 20 MB of L3, but the larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Core Ultra 5 225F may contribute to its strength in certain latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support separates the pair further. The Core 5 211E works with both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225F supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory, but the Core Ultra 5 225F has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The Core 5 211E has a notable feature in ECC memory support, which the Core Ultra 5 225F lacks. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Core Ultra 5 225F provides 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 211E provides 16. Integrated graphics appear only on the Core 5 211E, which carries UHD Graphics 730; the Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated GPU. Sockets differ as well, with the Core 5 211E on Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 225F on Intel Socket 1851. Both are desktop parts with locked multipliers and 65 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E dominates with a score of 2878, which is 52% higher than the Core Ultra 5 225F's 1893 in the same test.

Q: Does the Core Ultra 5 225F support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Core 5 211E in this comparison; the Core Ultra 5 225F does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark physics performance?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225F scores 2430 in PassMark physics, a 71.1% advantage over the Core 5 211E's 702. This is the largest single-test margin in favor of the Core Ultra 5 225F among all recorded benchmarks.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 225F supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Core Ultra 5 225F offers higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes from the CPU?

A: The Core Ultra 5 225F provides 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 5 211E provides 16 Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Do either of these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core 5 211E, which includes UHD Graphics 730. The Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics capability.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 37829, while the Core Ultra 5 225F averages 37313. The Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, and the Core Ultra 5 225F sits at the 85th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each chip. The Core Ultra 5 225F is the stronger all-round performer in most measured workloads, winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its advantages in floating point math, physics, encryption, and extended instructions make it a better choice for compute-heavy tasks where those instruction paths matter. The 71.1% lead in PassMark physics and the 87.8% lead in prime number finding are particularly strong indicators for scientific or simulation-oriented workloads. Its higher memory bandwidth and additional PCIe lanes also give it an edge in systems that rely on fast data movement or multiple Gen 5 devices.

The Core 5 211E, however, offers compelling strengths in specific areas. The 52% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core is the largest single margin in the entire comparison and suggests it may handle certain legacy software better, despite the Core Ultra 5 225F's newer architecture. The 32.7% advantage in PassMark integer math and the 11.6% lead in data compression also point to workloads built around integer operations, which includes many database, financial, and compression tasks. The support for ECC memory broadens its appeal to stability-focused systems, and the presence of integrated graphics means it can function in builds without a discrete GPU. The Core 5 211E also has the higher average benchmark score at 37829, edging out the Core Ultra 225F by a small margin.

For users building a new desktop system and prioritizing raw throughput in floating point, encryption, physics, or multithreaded productivity, the Core Ultra 5 225F is the better choice. For users whose workloads skew integer-heavy, demand ECC memory, or need integrated graphics, the Core 5 211E is the more suitable part despite its lower scores in most tests. The 65 W TDP is identical on both, so power envelopes will not differentiate them. The processor with 16 threads is the one that wins integer math and Cinebench R23; the processor with 10 threads on a 3 nm node wins everything else.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core 5 211E has 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Core Ultra 5 225F at 3.30 GHz and the Core 5 211E at 2.70 GHz, though both boost to 4.90 GHz. The manufacturing process differs significantly: the Core 5 211E uses Intel's 10 nm node, while the Core Ultra 5 225F uses TSMC's 3 nm node. Die size also varies slightly, at 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E and 243 mm² for the Core Ultra 5 225F, with the latter listing 17,800 million transistors.

Cache configurations are distinct. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Core Ultra 5 225F has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core. Both share 20 MB of L3. Memory support differs, with the Core 5 211E accepting DDR4 and DDR5, whereas the Core Ultra 5 225F accepts DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 5 225F at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Core 5 211E but absent on the Core Ultra 5 225F. PCIe lane counts from the CPU differ: 16 Gen 5 lanes for the Core 5 211E and 20 Gen 5 lanes for the Core Ultra 5 225F. Integrated graphics are included only on the Core 5 211E via UHD Graphics 730; the Core Ultra 5 225F has none. Sockets differ, with the Core 5 211E on Intel Socket 1700 and the Core Ultra 5 225F on Intel Socket 1851. The launch dates are close, with the Core Ultra 5 225F released on 2025-01-06 and the Core 5 211E on 2025-01-12. The launch MSRP is $221 for the Core 5 211E and $231 for the Core Ultra 5 225F.