Intel Core 5 211E vs Intel Core Ultra 5 238V Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-threaded performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 30.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V's 15645.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two tests: PassMark find prime numbers (174 vs 43, a 75.3% advantage) and PassMark physics (1546 vs 702, a 54.6% advantage).

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V uses Intel BGA 2833.

Q: How do the core counts differ between the two?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core clock speed?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E boosts to 4.90 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz for the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two processors target entirely different market segments and use fundamentally different design approaches. The Intel Core 5 211E is a desktop part from the Bartlett Lake family, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 238V is a mobile processor in the Core Ultra Series 2, based on Lunar Lake architecture.

The Core 5 211E uses a 10 nm Intel process with a die size of 257 mm². It features 10 cores with 16 threads, indicating a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra 5 238V uses a 3 nm TSMC process, which is significantly more advanced in terms of transistor density, though the die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Core 5 211E provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 238V offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. The larger L1 and L2 allocations on the Lunar Lake part indicate a design focused on low-latency access for single-threaded efficiency, while the Bartlett Lake chip relies on a much larger L3 pool.

Memory support differs as well. The Core 5 211E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 238V's memory support is listed as dependent on the motherboard, and it does not support ECC. Both utilize dual-channel memory buses.

PCIe connectivity shows a major gap. The Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 238V provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. This reflects the desktop part's role in driving discrete GPUs and expansion cards, versus the mobile part's more constrained I/O budget.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The Core 5 211E uses UHD Graphics 730, while the Core Ultra 5 238V uses Arc 130V. The Arc 130V represents a much more capable integrated GPU, which is typical for a mobile processor designed to handle graphics workloads without a discrete card.

Power characteristics are a defining difference. The Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 238V is rated at 17 watts. This 48-watt gap underscores the mobile part's efficiency focus, achieved through the smaller process node and lower clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E dominates in raw compute throughput across nearly every measured category. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its multi-core advantages are consistent, ranging from 29.5% in PassMark multi-thread to 126.6% in PassMark integer math. This makes it the clear choice for CPU-bound desktop workloads such as rendering, compilation, and heavy data processing.

The Core 5 211E also leads in single-threaded tests, though by a narrower margin. It scores 3% higher in PassMark single-thread (4006 vs 3890) and 30.3% higher in Cinebench R23 single-core (2878 vs 2208). The Cinebench single-core gap is larger than the PassMark gap, suggesting the 211E's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz provides a greater advantage in certain workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 238V wins in two specific areas: prime number finding and physics calculations. The PassMark find prime numbers score of 174 versus 43 represents a 75.3% advantage, and the physics score of 1546 versus 702 shows a 54.6% lead. These wins point to workloads that benefit from the Lunar Lake architecture's specific instruction handling or memory latency characteristics, despite the lower core count.

For mobile use cases, the Core Ultra 5 238V's 17-watt TDP is a decisive factor. The data shows it delivers roughly 75% of the multi-core performance of the 211E (based on Cinebench R23 scores) while consuming far less power. That efficiency profile suits thin-and-light laptops where sustained performance under a strict thermal envelope matters more than peak throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 5 211E | Intel Core Ultra 5 238V |

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

| Cores | 10 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 17 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2833 |

| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Lunar Lake |

| 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) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | Depends on motherboard |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Arc 130V |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-01-12 | 2024-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $221 | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably consistent pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Core 5 211E wins both single-core and multi-core tests by roughly 30%. In R15 multi-core, it scores 2055 against 1576, a 30.4% edge. R20 multi-core shows 8563 against 6570, a 30.3% gap. R23 multi-core repeats the pattern at 20389 versus 15645. Single-core results mirror this: R15 at 289 vs 222 (30.2%), R20 at 1208 vs 927 (30.3%), and R23 at 2878 vs 2208 (30.3%). This uniformity suggests the 211E's advantage comes from its higher core count, higher clocks, and larger L3 cache, all of which compound across Cinebench's rendering workload.

PassMark integer math delivers the largest win for the Core 5 211E. It scores 88117 against 38889, a 126.6% advantage. This result indicates the 211E's 10-core, 16-thread configuration excels at arithmetic-heavy integer workloads that scale well with parallel execution.

Data compression shows a similarly lopsided result. The 211E scores 346757 versus 176532, a 96.4% advantage. Data encryption also favors the 211E at 17938 versus 13072, a 37.2% margin. Extended instructions go to the 211E by 40.4% (21592 vs 15377). Random string sorting favors the 211E by 58.9% (34308 vs 21585). Floating point math is closer but still favors the 211E, 66402 vs 53160, a 24.9% gap.

PassMark multi-thread shows the 211E ahead by 29.5% (23833 vs 18407). The single-thread score is nearly tied, with the 211E at 4006 and the Ultra 5 at 3890, a 3% difference. This narrow single-thread margin contrasts with the much larger Cinebench single-core gap, indicating that PassMark's single-thread workload does not stress the clock speed or architecture differences as heavily.

The two wins for the Core Ultra 5 238V are notable for their magnitude. In find prime numbers, it scores 174 against 43, which represents a 75.3% advantage. In physics, it scores 1546 against 702, a 54.6% lead. These results suggest the Lunar Lake architecture has specific strengths in algorithms that involve prime sieving or physics simulation, possibly due to its larger L1 cache per core (192 KB vs 80 KB) or different instruction scheduling.

The Verdict

The Intel Core 5 211E is the stronger processor for desktop workloads that demand raw compute. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 3% to 126.6%. Its 10 cores, 16 threads, 4.90 GHz boost clock, and 20 MB of L3 cache deliver consistent multi-core advantages across Cinebench and PassMark suites. The 65-watt TDP is appropriate for a desktop part with a Socket 1700 platform, and the 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow for full-bandwidth discrete GPU connectivity. The 211E also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory and ECC, making it suitable for workstation-class builds.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 238V serves a completely different purpose. Its 17-watt TDP and BGA 2833 socket place it in fanless or low-power mobile designs. It delivers roughly 77% of the 211E's Cinebench R23 multi-core score (15645 vs 20389) while using a fraction of the power. The two benchmark wins in prime finding and physics indicate that certain algorithm classes run faster on Lunar Lake despite the lower core count. The Arc 130V integrated graphics also provide a much stronger GPU option than UHD Graphics 730, which matters for mobile systems without discrete graphics.

The database's percentile rankings confirm the performance tiers. The Core 5 211E sits at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 238V sits at the 75th. The 211E's average benchmark score of 37829 places it alongside AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132 (37804, 0.1% apart) and Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, 0.2% apart). The Ultra 5 238V's average of 21981 lands near Intel Core i7-11700F and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, both within 0.1% of its score.

Buyers should select based on platform, not just performance. The Core 5 211E is a desktop processor for Socket 1700 systems with a launch MSRP of $221, offering high multi-thread throughput and expansion capability. The Core Ultra 5 238V is a mobile processor for soldered BGA 2833 boards, prioritizing power efficiency and integrated graphics over raw compute. The benchmark data shows no single winner across all categories; the 211E wins the compute crown, while the 238V wins on efficiency and specific algorithm classes.