Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 226V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 17 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Core 5 211E and the Intel Core Ultra 5 226V. The Core 5 211E dominates with 15 wins, while the Core Ultra 5 226V takes only 2. The margin of victory in many of the Core 5 211E's wins is substantial, indicating a clear performance tier separation.

The largest single victory for the Core 5 211E comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 88117 against 38647, a 128% advantage. This workload heavily favors the desktop processor's higher core count and thread count. Similarly, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core 5 211E records 20389 points versus 9848, a 107% lead. The PassMark data compression test shows a 103.2% delta, with scores of 346757 and 170687 respectively. These three workloads represent the most lopsided results in the entire comparison.

The Core 5 211E also demonstrates meaningful advantages in several other benchmarks. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, it wins 1208 to 900, a 34.2% margin. The R20 multicore test shows the same 34.2% delta, with scores of 8563 and 6381. PassMark extended instructions gives the Core 5 211E a 46.6% edge (21592 versus 14724), and PassMark random string sorting shows a 64.8% advantage (34308 versus 20813). The data encryption test records a 41.1% lead for the Core 5 211E, scoring 17938 against 12710.

Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern. The multicore test shows a 36.9% advantage for the Core 5 211E (2055 versus 1501), while the singlecore test shows a more modest 8.2% lead (289 versus 267). PassMark multithread records a 33.5% delta in favor of the Core 5 211E (23833 versus 17850), and PassMark floating point math shows a 27% edge (66402 versus 52270). The single-thread PassMark scores are close, with the Core 5 211E winning 4006 to 3754, a 6.7% margin.

The Core Ultra 5 226V secures its two wins in workloads that appear to favor its architecture. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 166 versus 43, a 74.1% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 226V. This is the largest delta in any test. In PassMark physics, the Core Ultra 5 226V scores 1449 against 702, a 51.6% lead. These results indicate that the Lunar Lake architecture has specific strengths in prime number calculation and physics simulation, despite losing most other comparisons.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall gap. The Core 5 211E records an average score of 37829, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 226V averages 19368, which lands in the 73rd percentile. The nearest rival data for the Core 5 211E shows it trading positions with AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (0.1% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (0.2% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (-0.2% delta), and Intel Core i9-14901E (-0.2% delta). The Core Ultra 5 226V sits alongside AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (0% delta), Intel Core i5-1345U (-0.2% delta), Intel Core i7-8700K (0.7% delta), and Intel Core i7-10700F (-0.7% delta). These rival groups confirm that the two processors occupy different performance tiers entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra 5 226V wins only 2 tests: PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the Core 5 211E leads by 128%. The second largest is in Cinebench R23 multicore, with a 107% advantage for the Core 5 211E.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core 5 211E leads in all single-thread tests. In Cinebench R15 singlecore it wins 289 to 267 (8.2% delta), in Cinebench R20 singlecore it wins 1208 to 900 (34.2% delta), and in Cinebench R23 singlecore it wins 2878 to 1744 (65% delta). PassMark single-thread shows a 6.7% lead for the Core 5 211E, with scores of 4006 and 3754.

Q: What is the Core Ultra 5 226V best at?

A: The Core Ultra 5 226V wins PassMark find prime numbers with a score of 166 versus 43, a 74.1% advantage. It also wins PassMark physics with 1449 points versus 702, a 51.6% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores and percentiles compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37829 and sits in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 226V has an average of 19368 and sits in the 73rd percentile.

Q: What does the nearest rival data show for each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E's nearest rivals include AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (0.1% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (0.2% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (-0.2% delta), and Intel Core i9-14901E (-0.2% delta). The Core Ultra 5 226V's nearest rivals are AMD Ryzen 5 7533HS (0% delta), Intel Core i5-1345U (-0.2% delta), Intel Core i7-8700K (0.7% delta), and Intel Core i7-10700F (-0.7% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families with fundamentally different design goals. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 226V uses the Lunar Lake architecture, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, and is manufactured on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This process difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap between the two.

The die size also differs. The Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm², while the Core Ultra 5 226V has no recorded die size in the database. The process node difference suggests the Lunar Lake part is considerably more compact, but the data does not confirm this directly.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core 5 211E uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 226V uses 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 226V has more per-core L1 and L2 cache, but the Core 5 211E has 12 MB more shared L3 cache. This likely contributes to the Core 5 211E's strong multicore results, as more shared cache benefits thread-heavy workloads.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Core 5 211E includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 226V includes Arc 130V. The Arc 130V is a newer GPU architecture tied to the Lunar Lake platform, though the benchmark data does not include graphics performance tests.

The memory support also diverges. The Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 226V has memory support listed as "unknown, depends on motherboard" with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth. The Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 226V does not. This makes the Core 5 211E suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

PCIe connectivity shows a major difference. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 226V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes (CPU only). The 12-lane difference means the Core 5 211E can support more PCIe devices directly.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Core 5 211E benefits from hyperthreading, giving it 8 additional threads, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio.

Clock speeds favor the Core 5 211E. Its base clock is 2.70 GHz with a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 226V has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Core 5 211E starts 0.60 GHz higher at base and boosts 0.40 GHz higher.

The thermal design power (TDP) shows the largest specification gap. The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has a TDP of 17 watts. This 48-watt difference reflects the desktop versus mobile positioning. The Core 5 211E is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra 5 226V is a mobile part.

The sockets differ completely. The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Core Ultra 5 226V uses Intel BGA 2833. These are not interchangeable. The market segments confirm this: Desktop for the Core 5 211E, Mobile for the Core Ultra 5 226V.

The release dates place them in different timeframes. The Core 5 211E was released on 2025-01-12, while the Core Ultra 5 226V was released on 2024-09-23. The Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221, while the Core Ultra 5 226V has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are marked as Active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and SRPMQSRPMR for the Core Ultra 5 226V.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The Core 5 211E wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, often by large margins. Its average benchmark score of 37829 places it in the 86th percentile, while the Core Ultra 5 226V averages 19368 in the 73rd percentile. The nearest rival groups confirm these are different tiers: the Core 5 211E competes with high-end AMD Ryzen AI and Intel Core i9 parts, while the Core Ultra 5 226V competes with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts.

The Core 5 211E is the choice for workloads that demand raw multithreaded throughput. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache deliver results that are more than double the Core Ultra 5 226V in some tests. The 107% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 128% lead in PassMark integer math illustrate this. The Core 5 211E also supports ECC memory and provides 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, making it suitable for workstation-style configurations.

The Core Ultra 5 226V has its own strengths. Its 17-watt TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its 3 nm process node from TSMC reflects a modern mobile design. The 2 wins it records, in PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics, show that its architecture has specific advantages in certain computational patterns. Its 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 cache per core provide more per-core cache than the Core 5 211E, which may explain these targeted wins.

Users requiring maximum compute performance from the database should select the Core 5 211E. Users constrained by power or requiring mobile form factors should select the Core Ultra 5 226V. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 5 211E wins in every benchmark category except two. Its wins span all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) in both singlecore and multicore tests. It also wins PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. The margin of victory ranges from 6.7% in PassMark single-thread to 128% in PassMark integer math.

The Core Ultra 5 226V wins only in PassMark find prime numbers and PassMark physics. The prime number test shows a 74.1% advantage, which is the single largest delta in either direction across all tests. The physics test shows a 51.6% lead. These two wins suggest the Lunar Lake architecture handles specific mathematical and physics-based calculations more efficiently, possibly due to its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

For general productivity, rendering, and data processing, the Core 5 211E is the clear winner. For specialized workloads involving prime number computation or physics simulation, the Core Ultra 5 226V demonstrates a measurable edge. The overall win count of 15 to 2, combined with the average score gap of 37829 versus 19368, indicates that the Core 5 211E is the higher-performing processor in the vast majority of tasks.