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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Core 5 211E does not secure a single win, with the Ultra 5 235A taking every test in the database. The most decisive margins appear in multi-core and physics workloads, while the narrowest gap occurs in integer math.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 5 235A scores 3289 against 2055 for the Core 5 211E, a 37.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 464 versus 289, also a 37.7% lead for the Ultra 5 235A. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap remains consistent at 37.5%, with scores of 13705 and 8563 respectively. The R20 single-core test shows 1934 versus 1208, another 37.5% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 32633 against 20389, while single-core shows 4607 versus 2878, both maintaining the 37.5% delta.

PassMark tests reveal a wider spread of outcomes. The largest single margin is in the find prime numbers test, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 392 versus a mere 43 for the Core 5 211E, an 89% gap. Physics testing shows a 71.2% difference, with 2437 against 702. Data encryption favors the Ultra 5 235A by 40.5%, scoring 30136 versus 17938. Floating point math delivers a 44.1% lead, with 118778 against 66402. Multithread performance shows 38392 versus 23833, a 37.9% margin. Extended instructions provide a 31.7% advantage, with 31625 versus 21592.

The closest contest is in integer math, where the Ultra 5 235A scores 88626 against 88117 for the Core 5 211E, a mere 0.6% difference. Data compression shows an 11.9% gap, with 393800 versus 346757. Single-thread PassMark results give the Ultra 5 235A 4557 against 4006, a 12.1% lead. Random string sorting shows 49489 versus 34308, a 30.7% margin.

These benchmark results indicate that the Ultra 5 235A consistently outperforms the Core 5 211E in every measured category. The smallest deltas suggest that integer-heavy workloads see the least differentiation, while prime number calculation and physics simulations show the largest performance separation.

Architecture Differences

The two processors sit on entirely different architectural foundations. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. This process node difference accounts for the Ultra 5 235A's transistor count of 17,800 million, while the Core 5 211E has no recorded transistor figure in the database.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 5 211E offers 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Ultra 5 235A provides 14 cores and 14 threads. The Ultra 5 235A has more physical cores but no hyper-threading, resulting in fewer total threads. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Core 5 211E features 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Ultra 5 235A offers 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only. Memory bandwidth jumps from 76.8 GB/s on the Core 5 211E to 102.4 GB/s on the Ultra 5 235A. ECC memory is supported on the Core 5 211E but not on the Ultra 5 235A.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 235A provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also change: the Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.

Die size measurements show 257 mm² for the Core 5 211E versus 243 mm² for the Ultra 5 235A. Socket compatibility is entirely separate, with the Core 5 211E on Intel Socket 1700 and the Ultra 5 235A on Intel Socket 1851. Clock speeds favor the Ultra 5 235A, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. Both processors are locked, with no unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A outperforms the Intel Core 5 211E in every single recorded test. The average benchmark score confirms this: the Ultra 5 235A sits at 48201, while the Core 5 211E sits at 37829. Percentile rankings place the Ultra 5 235A at the 90th percentile against all CPUs, while the Core 5 211E ranks at the 86th percentile.

The nearest rivals for each processor put their performance levels in context. The Core 5 211E sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and the Intel Core i9-14901E, with the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 trailing by 0.1% and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 trailing by 0.2%. The Ultra 5 235A sits within 0.6% of the AMD EPYC 4345P and within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 trails by 0.1% and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 trails by 0.6%.

Users with workloads that depend on multi-threaded rendering, physics simulation, or encryption should select the Ultra 5 235A without hesitation. The 37.5% multicore advantage in Cinebench R23 and the 71.2% lead in PassMark physics represent substantial real-world gains. The Core 5 211E retains relevance only for tasks where its DDR4 memory support or ECC capability are mandatory requirements, as the performance data shows no category where it leads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Cores: Core 5 211E has 10 cores; Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores.
• Threads: Core 5 211E has 16 threads; Ultra 5 235A has 14 threads.
• Base clock: Core 5 211E runs at 2.70 GHz; Ultra 5 235A runs at 3.40 GHz.
• Boost clock: Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz; Ultra 5 235A boosts to 5.00 GHz.
• Socket: Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700; Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851.
• Codename: Core 5 211E uses Bartlett Lake; Ultra 5 235A uses Arrow Lake-S.
• Process node: Core 5 211E uses 10 nm; Ultra 5 235A uses 3 nm.
• Foundry: Core 5 211E uses Intel; Ultra 5 235A uses TSMC.
• Transistors: Core 5 211E has no recorded count; Ultra 5 235A has 17,800 million.
• Die size: Core 5 211E measures 257 mm²; Ultra 5 235A measures 243 mm².
• L1 cache: Core 5 211E has 80 KB per core; Ultra 5 235A has 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: Core 5 211E has 2 MB per core; Ultra 5 235A has 3 MB per core.
• L3 cache: Core 5 211E has 20 MB shared; Ultra 5 235A has 24 MB shared.
• Memory support: Core 5 211E supports DDR4 and DDR5; Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 only.
• Memory bandwidth: Core 5 211E delivers 76.8 GB/s; Ultra 5 235A delivers 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC memory: Core 5 211E supports ECC; Ultra 5 235A does not.
• PCIe lanes: Core 5 211E has Gen 5, 16 lanes; Ultra 5 235A has Gen 5, 20 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730; Ultra 5 235A uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU.
• Release date: Core 5 211E released 2025-01-12; Ultra 5 235A released 2025-07-28.
• Launch MSRP: Core 5 211E has a launch MSRP of $221; Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores.

Q: Does the Core 5 211E support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Ultra 5 235A does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ultra 5 235A delivers 102.4 GB/s, while the Core 5 211E delivers 76.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Core 5 211E supports DDR4, as the Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 exclusively.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 against 20389 for the Core 5 211E, a 37.5% advantage.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. The largest advantages appear in PassMark find prime numbers (89% lead), PassMark physics (71.2% lead), and PassMark floating point math (44.1% lead). These results point to workloads involving prime number calculations, physics simulations, and heavy floating-point operations as areas of maximum benefit.

The smallest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 5 235A leads by only 0.6%. This suggests that integer-heavy workloads see the least differentiation between the two processors. Data compression and single-thread tasks also show relatively modest gaps of 11.9% and 12.1% respectively.

For Cinebench workloads, the Ultra 5 235A maintains a consistent 37.5% lead across R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests. This consistency indicates that the architectural advantages of the 3 nm TSMC process and the higher clock speeds translate directly to rendering performance.

The Core 5 211E offers no recorded benchmark win. Its advantages are purely specification-based: DDR4 memory support, ECC capability, and a lower launch MSRP of $221 versus $269. Builders requiring ECC memory or DDR4 compatibility must choose the Core 5 211E, but the performance data shows no workload where it outperforms the Ultra 5 235A.