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

The Intel Core 5 211E and Intel Core Ultra 5 235H are both active Intel processors released on the same date, yet they target fundamentally different platforms. The 211E is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1700, while the 235H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2049. Despite the Core Ultra 5 235H winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Core 5 211E secures two notable victories that reveal distinct performance profiles. The data shows a clear overall performance leader, but the specific wins for the 211E suggest that workload character matters more than a simple score comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H dominates the Cinebench suite with remarkable consistency. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Ultra 5 235H holds a lead of approximately 20.3% to 20.6% over the Core 5 211E. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ultra 5 235H scores 25,598 against the 211E’s 20,389, a 20.3% advantage. Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Ultra 5 235H posting 3,613 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2,878 for the 211E. This uniformity across R15, R20, and R23 suggests a foundational architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Core 5 211E wins Passmark data compression with a score of 346,757, beating the Ultra 5 235H’s 301,979 by 14.8%. This is not a marginal victory—it represents a substantial lead in a memory and cache-sensitive workload. The 211E also takes Passmark integer math, scoring 88,117 versus 74,247, an 18.7% margin. These two wins hint that the desktop chip’s memory subsystem or core configuration handles certain integer and compression tasks more efficiently.

Every other Passmark test goes to the Ultra 5 235H, often by wide margins. The most dramatic difference appears in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Ultra 5 235H scores 239 against the 211E’s 43—an 82% deficit for the desktop chip. Passmark physics shows a similar gulf, with the Ultra 5 235H at 1,985 versus 702, a 64.6% gap. Floating point math also favors the mobile chip heavily, 93,509 to 66,402, a 29% lead. Even in closer tests like random string sorting, the Ultra 5 235H wins at 36,208 versus 34,308, a 5.2% edge.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E carves out a specific niche with its two wins. Data compression and integer math are classic desktop-oriented tasks, often found in file archiving, database workloads, and general productivity applications. The 211E’s 14.8% compression advantage and 18.7% integer math lead suggest that for users who prioritize these specific operations, the desktop chip offers measurable benefits. These wins are not trivial—they indicate that the 211E’s core layout or cache hierarchy is tuned for integer-heavy, sequential processing.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins everywhere else, which makes it the more versatile processor. Its single-thread performance advantage, seen in the 8.1% Passmark single-thread lead (4,359 vs 4,006), means faster response in everyday applications and lightly threaded software. The 20.8% multithread lead in Passmark (30,091 vs 23,833) shows strong scaling across cores. The massive wins in prime number finding and physics point to superior floating-point and branch-prediction capabilities, which benefit scientific computing, physics simulations, and encryption workloads. The 22.4% lead in data encryption (23,121 vs 17,938) further confirms this strength in security and cryptographic tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename on a 10 nm Intel process node, while the Core Ultra 5 235H uses Arrow Lake-H on a 3 nm TSMC node. This process difference—10 nm versus 3 nm—explains much of the performance gap, as the smaller node typically enables higher efficiency and clock speeds. The 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, whereas the 235H packs 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating that the mobile chip relies more on physical cores than hyperthreading.

Cache configurations tell a complex story. The 211E offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The 235H counters with 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The 235H has more cache per core, which boosts per-thread performance, but the 211E has more total L3, which may explain its compression and integer math wins. The die size is listed at 257 mm² for the 211E, while the 235H’s die size is not provided.

Memory support further differentiates the pair. The 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 235H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The 235H has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the 211E. The 211E supports ECC memory, which the 235H does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the 211E offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the 235H provides Gen 5 with only 8 lanes. Integrated graphics vary as well, with the 211E using UHD Graphics 730 and the 235H featuring Arc Graphics 140T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins all single-core benchmarks. It scores 3,613 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 2,878 for the Core 5 211E, a 20.3% advantage, and 4,359 in Passmark single-thread versus 4,006, an 8.1% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 211E win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 211E wins exactly two tests: Passmark data compression at 346,757 versus 301,979 (14.8% lead) and Passmark integer math at 88,117 versus 74,247 (18.7% lead).

Q: Why does the Core Ultra 5 235H have fewer threads than cores?

A: The 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it does not use hyperthreading. The Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, indicating it does use hyperthreading. This difference reflects distinct design choices for mobile versus desktop power envelopes.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H does not. This makes the 211E potentially more suitable for error-sensitive workstation or server tasks.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Core 5 211E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The 235H has more cache per core, but the 211E has more total L3.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core 5 211E has an average benchmark score of 37,829, while the Core Ultra 5 235H averages 37,522. The 211E is marginally ahead in average score, despite losing most individual tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 5 235H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 10 | 14 |

| Threads | 16 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Arrow Lake-H |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc Graphics 140T |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H for most users. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and the majority of Passmark workloads. Its 20.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 20.8% lead in Passmark multithread indicate superior overall throughput. The 235H’s 3 nm process node and higher per-core cache contribute to its dominance in floating-point math, physics, and encryption. Anyone needing a balanced processor for general productivity, content creation, or scientific workloads should choose the 235H based on these results.

The Intel Core 5 211E is the pick for a narrower set of tasks. Its wins in data compression (14.8% ahead) and integer math (18.7% ahead) make it attractive for workloads focused on those operations, such as database processing or file archiving. The 211E also offers ECC memory support, which the 235H lacks, and a desktop socket with 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus the 235H’s 8 lanes. For users who prioritize compression and integer performance, or who require ECC memory and more PCIe connectivity, the 211E is the justified choice. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—37,829 for the 211E versus 37,522 for the 235H—but the distribution of wins shows two very different performance profiles.