Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits these two processors into sharply different performance profiles. The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the Cinebench suite, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 counters with substantial wins across Passmark workloads. The overall win count favors the Core Ultra 5 235, 10 wins to 7, but the margins tell a more complex story.

The Core 5 211E takes every Cinebench test by a wide, consistent margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 20,389 against 14,769 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a 38.1% advantage. The single-core result in R23 shows 2,878 versus 2,085, a 38% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the same 38.1% delta with scores of 8,563 and 6,202. Cinebench R15 multi-core also lands at 38.1% ahead, with 2,055 versus 1,488. The single-core tests in R15 and R20 show 37.6% and 38.1% leads respectively. This consistency across all six Cinebench variants indicates the Core 5 211E has a structural advantage in rendering and general CPU-bound workloads that the Core Ultra 5 235 cannot offset.

The Core Ultra 5 235 wins the Passmark suite with much larger margins in several tests. The most extreme gap appears in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 versus just 43, a 88.4% difference. Passmark physics shows a 72.7% lead, with 2,570 against 702. Floating point math favors the Core Ultra 5 235 by 43.7%, scoring 117,951 versus 66,402. Data encryption runs 38.8% faster on the Core Ultra 5 235, with 29,293 versus 17,938. Extended instructions show a 34.1% lead, 32,752 versus 21,592. Random string sorting is 30% faster, and multi-thread performance is 37% higher, at 37,816 versus 23,833. Data compression yields an 11.2% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235. The single-thread Passmark score also goes to the Core Ultra 5 235, 4,516 versus 4,006, an 11.3% lead.

The only Passmark test where the Core 5 211E wins is integer math, but by a razor-thin 0.2% margin: 88,117 versus 87,948. That near tie is notable because it shows the two processors are effectively equivalent in integer arithmetic despite the large swings elsewhere.

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall picture. The Core Ultra 5 235 sits at 46,062, which places it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 5 211E averages 37,829, good for the 86th percentile. Their nearest rivals in the database follow the same separation: the Core Ultra 5 235 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HX, while the Core 5 211E is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core 5 211E wins 7.

Q: How large is the Cinebench advantage for the Intel Core 5 211E?

A: The Core 5 211E leads by 38.1% in R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core, by 38% in R23 single-core, and by 37.6% in R15 single-core.

Q: What is the biggest single-test gap in either direction?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 leads by 88.4%, scoring 371 versus 43.

Q: Are the two processors close in any workload?

A: Passmark integer math is nearly identical, with the Core 5 211E scoring 88,117 and the Core Ultra 5 235 scoring 87,948, a difference of only 0.2%.

Q: Do the Cinebench wins for the Core 5 211E translate into a higher average benchmark score?

A: No. The Core Ultra 5 235 has a higher average benchmark score of 46,062, compared to 37,829 for the Core 5 211E, and a higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 86.

Q: How does each processor compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The Core 5 211E is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435. The Core Ultra 5 235 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P, while sitting 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13900HX.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design generations and manufacturing flows. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with Arrow Lake architecture and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235 carries a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while the Core 5 211E has a die size of 257 mm² with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating hyper-threading is active. The Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning each core maps to one thread. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 211E has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Core Ultra 5 235 align with its Passmark strengths in physics and prime number calculation.

Memory architecture changes as well. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and ECC memory support. The Core Ultra 5 235 supports only DDR5, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs, with the Core 5 211E offering Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU and the Core Ultra 5 235 offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics take different paths. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 235 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Sockets are not interchangeable: the Core 5 211E fits Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 235 fits Intel Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

The base clock rates differ, with the Core 5 211E running at 2.70 GHz and the Core Ultra 5 235 at 3.40 GHz. Boost clocks also favor the Core Ultra 5 235, which reaches 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz for the Core 5 211E. Both processors have a 65 W TDP and locked multipliers.

Memory support is a clear differentiator. The Core 5 211E accepts DDR4 and DDR5, while the Core Ultra 5 235 accepts DDR5 only. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211E but not on the Core Ultra 5 235. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra 5 235 at 102.4 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s on the Core 5 211E.

PCIe lane counts differ, with the Core Ultra 5 235 providing 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU and the Core 5 211E providing 16. The process node and foundry differ as noted: 10 nm at Intel for the Core 5 211E, 3 nm at TSMC for the Core Ultra 5 235. Release dates are close, with the Core 5 211E appearing on 2025-01-12 and the Core Ultra 5 235 on 2025-01-06. The launch MSRP for the Core 5 211E is $221, and the launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 235 is $257. Part numbers are SRQERQ65F for the Core 5 211E and SRQAS for the Core Ultra 5 235.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E wins every Cinebench test in the database. These results indicate that the processor is better suited for workloads that follow the Cinebench pattern: multi-threaded rendering, 3D scene creation, and sustained CPU compute where hyper-threading helps. The 16-thread count on a 10-core design gives it an advantage in these heavily threaded tasks, and the 38.1% margins are consistent across all Cinebench versions. The single-core Cinebench wins, which are also near 38%, suggest the Core 5 211E has higher per-thread efficiency in this specific benchmark family than the Core Ultra 5 235, despite the Core Ultra 5 235 having a higher boost clock.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 wins across the Passmark suite, with the exception of integer math. Its strengths are most pronounced in prime number finding, physics simulation, floating point math, and encryption. These tasks benefit from the larger L1 and L2 caches and the higher memory bandwidth. The 88.4% gap in prime numbers and the 72.7% gap in physics are the largest recorded deltas. The multi-thread Passmark score also goes to the Core Ultra 5 235 by 37%, which indicates that in Passmark's threading model, the 14-core, 14-thread configuration outperforms the 10-core, 16-thread configuration. Single-thread Passmark performance is also better on the Core Ultra 5 235, matching its higher base and boost clocks.

The split is clean: the Core 5 211E for Cinebench-class rendering workloads, the Core Ultra 5 235 for Passmark-class computational workloads. The integer math near tie is the only point where the two converge.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to different buyers for each processor. The Intel Core 5 211E is the choice for anyone whose primary load is Cinebench-style rendering, where it leads the Core Ultra 5 235 by 38.1% across multi-core and single-core tests. Its support for DDR4 and DDR5 memory, plus ECC memory, also gives it flexibility for systems that need older memory types or error correction. The lower launch MSRP of $221, recorded in the database, positions it as the less expensive option in this comparison.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is the stronger overall performer in the database, with an average benchmark score of 46,062 versus 37,829, and a higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 86. It wins 10 of 17 head-to-head tests, with decisive advantages in physics, prime number finding, floating point math, encryption, and multi-thread Passmark performance. Its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and larger cache hierarchy support these wins. The higher launch MSRP of $257 reflects its broader performance lead in the measured data.

The Core 5 211E is not a weak processor; it shows a 0.2% lead over the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 and a 0.1% lead over the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 in the nearest rival data. But the Core Ultra 5 235 sits in a higher performance tier, trading 0.1% leads with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Core i9-13900HX. Users who need Cinebench rendering performance and memory flexibility should select the Core 5 211E. Users who need the broader computational strengths, especially in physics and encryption, and who can use DDR5-only memory, should select the Core Ultra 5 235. The data does not show a single winner across all tests, so the choice depends on which benchmark family matches the intended workload.